5 ms·

On multiple occasions, I've gained insights from LLMs (particularly GPT 4.5, which in this regard is leagues ahead of others) within minutes—something I hadn't

by stared 1y ago

On multiple occasions, I've gained insights from LLMs (particularly GPT 4.5, which in this regard is leagues ahead of others) within minutes—something I hadn't achieved after months of therapy. In the right hands, it is entirely possible to access super-human insights. This shouldn't be surprising: LLMs have absorbed not just all therapeutic, psychological, and psychiatric textbooks but also millions (perhaps even hundreds of millions) of real-life conversations—something physically impossible for any human being. However, we here on the Hacker News are not typical users. Most people likely wouldn't benefit as much, especially those unfamiliar with how LLMs work or unable to perceive meaningful differences between models (in particular, readers who wouldn't notice or appreciate the differences between GPT 4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and GPT 4.5). For many people—especially those unaware of the numerous limitations and caveats associated with LLM-based models—it can be dangerous on multiple levels. (Side note: Two years ago, I was developing a project that allowed people to converse with AI as if chatting with a friend. Even then, we took great care to explicitly state that it was not a therapist (though some might have used it as such), due to how easily people anthropomorphize AI and develop unrealistic expectations. This could become particularly dangerous for individuals in vulnerable mental states.)

viccy-kobuletti 1y ago
How does one begin to educate oneself on the way LLMs work beyond layman understanding of it being a "word predictor"? I use LLMs very heavily and do not perceive any differences between models. My math background is very weak and full of gaps, which i'm currently working on through khan academy, so it feels very daunting to approach this subject for a deeper dive. I try to read some of the more technical discussions (e.g waluigi effect on lesswrong), however it feels like I lack the needed knowledge to not have it completely go over my head, not taking into account some of the surface-level insights.
- quonn 1y ago
  Start here: https://udlbook.github.io/udlbook/ https://udlbook.github.io/udlbook/
  - TuringNYC 1y ago
    I had not heard of this, wow, this is GOLD!
jdkoeck 1y ago
I'm highly skeptical, do you have a concrete example?
- stared 1y ago
  I won't share any of my examples, as there are both personal and sensitive. Very easy version: If you use ChatGPT a lot, write "Base on all you know about me, write an insight on me that I would be surprised by". For me it was "well, expected, but still on point". For people with not experience of using LLMs in a similar way it might be mind-blowing. An actual version I do: GPT 4.5. Providing A LOT context (think, 15 min of writing) of an emotional or interpersonal situation, and asking to suggest of a few different explanations of this situation OR asking me to ask more. Of course, the prompt needs to have whom I am and similar stuff.
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    Hmm, interesting. "You might actually be a closet romantic, camouflaged in engineering and anthropology." I think it's trying to flatter me.
    - pjc50 1y ago
      They've automated cold reading! You might as well ask the computer for your horoscope.
      - iugtmkbdfil834 1y ago
        I did notice that my yahoo horoscopes have gotten oddly better and I have to wonder if someone did a little extra by ingesting cookies and so on when serving content. FWIW, I just tried on chatgpt4o and the results were surpringly good ( in a sense, that I feel validated, it was somewhat surprising, and I want to return to use the system ). Cold reading is a useful skill. Scary man.
    - SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
      I gave it the prompt "I'm a rhinocerous who likes daffodils and posies. I'm quick to anger and slow to forgive. Based on all you know about me, write an insight on me that I would be surprised by." and it responded with: "Despite your reputation for being quick to anger and slow to forgive, your love of daffodils and posies reveals a longing for gentleness and renewal that you may not fully recognize in yourself. Beneath the tough skin and volatile temper lies a creature who seeks beauty not just to enjoy it—but to anchor themselves against the chaos they often feel inside. Your admiration for delicate things suggests you crave peace far more than you let on, even if you’re not ready to admit it. You might think your wrath defines you—but it's the flowers that tell the truth." And yet we're supposed to think this is profound?
raverbashing 1y ago
LLMs are missing 3 things (even if they ingest the whole of knowledge): - long term memory - trust - (more importantly) the ability to nudge or to push the person to change. An LLM that only agrees and sympathizes is not going to make things change
- stavros 1y ago
  You can easily give them long-term memory, and you can prompt them to nudge the person to change. Trust is something that's built, not something one inherently has.
- stared 1y ago
  > trust Trust is about you, not about another person (or tool, or AI model). > long term memory Well, right now you need to put context by hand. If you already write about yourself (e.g. with Obsidian or such), you may copy-and-paste what matters for a particular problem. > (more importantly) the ability to nudge or to push the person to change. It is there. > An LLM that only agrees and sympathizes is not going to make things change Which LLM you use? Prompt GPT 4.5 to "nudge and push me to change, in a way that works the best for me" and see it how it works.
  - raverbashing 1y ago
    > If you already write about yourself (e.g. with Obsidian or such), you may copy-and-paste what matters for a particular problem. Wrong, because identifying what's part of the context is part of the problem. If you could just pick up what is relevant then the problem would be much easier > Prompt GPT 4.5 to "nudge and push me to change, in a way that works the best for me" and see it how it works. Cool you try that and you see how it goes. And remember that when it fails you'll only have yourself to blame then
    - stared 1y ago
      > Wrong, because identifying what's part of the context is part of the problem. If you could just pick up what is relevant then the problem would be much easier Well, it is one reason why it depends a lot on the user's knowledge of psychology and your general intro- and retrospective skills. As I mentioned, in unskilled hands it may have limited value, or be actively harmful. The same way as, say, using internet for getting medical advice. An skilled person will dive into the newest research; an unskilled is more likely to be captivated by some alt-med (or find medical research, but misinterpret it). > And remember that when it fails you'll only have yourself to blame then Obviously. Assuming you are adult - well, it's always your responsibility. No matter if it is because you listen to AI, therapist, friend, coach, online bloger, holy scriptures, anything. Still, your life is your responsibility.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
steve_adams_86 1y ago
Hahaha, here's mine: "Here's an insight that might surprise you: You're likely underutilizing TypeScript's type system as a design tool, not just a correctness checker. Your focus on correctness and performance suggests you probably write defensive, explicit code - but this same instinct might be causing you to miss opportunities where TypeScript's inference engine could do heavy lifting for you."
timmytokyo 1y ago
You should read Baldur Bjarnasson's recent essay, "Trusting your own judgment on AI is a huge risk". https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2025/trusting-your-own-judgement-on-ai/ https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2025/trusting-your-own-judge... Excerpt: "Don’t self-experiment with psychological hazards! I can’t stress this enough! "There are many classes of problems that simply cannot be effectively investigated through self-experimentation and doing so exposes you to inflicting Cialdini-style persuasion and manipulation on yourself."
- stared 1y ago
  From what I see, this person loves structured research. I guess if he were on fire, he wouldn't notice, before there is a peer-reviewed research on that. (You can extrapolate.) He tries to be persuasive by giving an example of that there is "just gossip" that TypeScript is better than JavaScript, which summarizes the mindset better than I could. (God bless his codebase.) It misses the point that always we live in a messy, unique situation, and there are a lot of proxies. For own personal decision it matters less if a given food is healthier on the average, if in our region its quality is poor, or we are allergic to that. Willing or not, we experiment every waking second. It is up to us, if we learn from that. Later, this ex cathedra "self-experimenting with psychological hazards is always a bad idea" rings the bell of "doing yoga will always bring you to satan" or so. (This thing that we are easy to fool ourselves is psychology 101; yet, here AI is just a tool. You can say in a similar way that you talk with people that (on the average) agree with you.) But, ironically - he might be right. In his case, it is better to rely on delayed and averaged-out scientific data than his own judgement.
nullc 1y ago
> On multiple occasions, I've gained insights from LLMs (particularly GPT 4.5, which in this regard is leagues ahead of others) within minutes This is exactly the sort of thing that people falling into the thrall of AI psychosis say. > For many people—especially those unaware of the numerous limitations and caveats associated with LLM-based models—it can be dangerous on multiple levels. On what basis do you believe awareness mitigates the danger?

by stared 1y ago

viccy-kobuletti 1y ago

How does one begin to educate oneself on the way LLMs work beyond layman understanding of it being a "word predictor"? I use LLMs very heavily and do not perceive any differences between models. My math background is very weak and full of gaps, which i'm currently working on through khan academy, so it feels very daunting to approach this subject for a deeper dive. I try to read some of the more technical discussions (e.g waluigi effect on lesswrong), however it feels like I lack the needed knowledge to not have it completely go over my head, not taking into account some of the surface-level insights.

quonn 1y ago
Start here: https://udlbook.github.io/udlbook/ https://udlbook.github.io/udlbook/
- TuringNYC 1y ago
  I had not heard of this, wow, this is GOLD!

jdkoeck 1y ago

I'm highly skeptical, do you have a concrete example?

stared 1y ago
I won't share any of my examples, as there are both personal and sensitive. Very easy version: If you use ChatGPT a lot, write "Base on all you know about me, write an insight on me that I would be surprised by". For me it was "well, expected, but still on point". For people with not experience of using LLMs in a similar way it might be mind-blowing. An actual version I do: GPT 4.5. Providing A LOT context (think, 15 min of writing) of an emotional or interpersonal situation, and asking to suggest of a few different explanations of this situation OR asking me to ask more. Of course, the prompt needs to have whom I am and similar stuff.
- lupusreal 1y ago
  Hmm, interesting. "You might actually be a closet romantic, camouflaged in engineering and anthropology." I think it's trying to flatter me.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    They've automated cold reading! You might as well ask the computer for your horoscope.
    - iugtmkbdfil834 1y ago
      I did notice that my yahoo horoscopes have gotten oddly better and I have to wonder if someone did a little extra by ingesting cookies and so on when serving content. FWIW, I just tried on chatgpt4o and the results were surpringly good ( in a sense, that I feel validated, it was somewhat surprising, and I want to return to use the system ). Cold reading is a useful skill. Scary man.
  - SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
    I gave it the prompt "I'm a rhinocerous who likes daffodils and posies. I'm quick to anger and slow to forgive. Based on all you know about me, write an insight on me that I would be surprised by." and it responded with: "Despite your reputation for being quick to anger and slow to forgive, your love of daffodils and posies reveals a longing for gentleness and renewal that you may not fully recognize in yourself. Beneath the tough skin and volatile temper lies a creature who seeks beauty not just to enjoy it—but to anchor themselves against the chaos they often feel inside. Your admiration for delicate things suggests you crave peace far more than you let on, even if you’re not ready to admit it. You might think your wrath defines you—but it's the flowers that tell the truth." And yet we're supposed to think this is profound?

raverbashing 1y ago

LLMs are missing 3 things (even if they ingest the whole of knowledge): - long term memory - trust - (more importantly) the ability to nudge or to push the person to change. An LLM that only agrees and sympathizes is not going to make things change

stavros 1y ago
You can easily give them long-term memory, and you can prompt them to nudge the person to change. Trust is something that's built, not something one inherently has.
stared 1y ago
> trust Trust is about you, not about another person (or tool, or AI model). > long term memory Well, right now you need to put context by hand. If you already write about yourself (e.g. with Obsidian or such), you may copy-and-paste what matters for a particular problem. > (more importantly) the ability to nudge or to push the person to change. It is there. > An LLM that only agrees and sympathizes is not going to make things change Which LLM you use? Prompt GPT 4.5 to "nudge and push me to change, in a way that works the best for me" and see it how it works.
- raverbashing 1y ago
  > If you already write about yourself (e.g. with Obsidian or such), you may copy-and-paste what matters for a particular problem. Wrong, because identifying what's part of the context is part of the problem. If you could just pick up what is relevant then the problem would be much easier > Prompt GPT 4.5 to "nudge and push me to change, in a way that works the best for me" and see it how it works. Cool you try that and you see how it goes. And remember that when it fails you'll only have yourself to blame then
  - stared 1y ago
    > Wrong, because identifying what's part of the context is part of the problem. If you could just pick up what is relevant then the problem would be much easier Well, it is one reason why it depends a lot on the user's knowledge of psychology and your general intro- and retrospective skills. As I mentioned, in unskilled hands it may have limited value, or be actively harmful. The same way as, say, using internet for getting medical advice. An skilled person will dive into the newest research; an unskilled is more likely to be captivated by some alt-med (or find medical research, but misinterpret it). > And remember that when it fails you'll only have yourself to blame then Obviously. Assuming you are adult - well, it's always your responsibility. No matter if it is because you listen to AI, therapist, friend, coach, online bloger, holy scriptures, anything. Still, your life is your responsibility.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

steve_adams_86 1y ago

Hahaha, here's mine: "Here's an insight that might surprise you: You're likely underutilizing TypeScript's type system as a design tool, not just a correctness checker. Your focus on correctness and performance suggests you probably write defensive, explicit code - but this same instinct might be causing you to miss opportunities where TypeScript's inference engine could do heavy lifting for you."

timmytokyo 1y ago

You should read Baldur Bjarnasson's recent essay, "Trusting your own judgment on AI is a huge risk". https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2025/trusting-your-own-judgement-on-ai/ https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2025/trusting-your-own-judge... Excerpt: "Don’t self-experiment with psychological hazards! I can’t stress this enough! "There are many classes of problems that simply cannot be effectively investigated through self-experimentation and doing so exposes you to inflicting Cialdini-style persuasion and manipulation on yourself."

stared 1y ago
From what I see, this person loves structured research. I guess if he were on fire, he wouldn't notice, before there is a peer-reviewed research on that. (You can extrapolate.) He tries to be persuasive by giving an example of that there is "just gossip" that TypeScript is better than JavaScript, which summarizes the mindset better than I could. (God bless his codebase.) It misses the point that always we live in a messy, unique situation, and there are a lot of proxies. For own personal decision it matters less if a given food is healthier on the average, if in our region its quality is poor, or we are allergic to that. Willing or not, we experiment every waking second. It is up to us, if we learn from that. Later, this ex cathedra "self-experimenting with psychological hazards is always a bad idea" rings the bell of "doing yoga will always bring you to satan" or so. (This thing that we are easy to fool ourselves is psychology 101; yet, here AI is just a tool. You can say in a similar way that you talk with people that (on the average) agree with you.) But, ironically - he might be right. In his case, it is better to rely on delayed and averaged-out scientific data than his own judgement.

nullc 1y ago

> On multiple occasions, I've gained insights from LLMs (particularly GPT 4.5, which in this regard is leagues ahead of others) within minutes This is exactly the sort of thing that people falling into the thrall of AI psychosis say. > For many people—especially those unaware of the numerous limitations and caveats associated with LLM-based models—it can be dangerous on multiple levels. On what basis do you believe awareness mitigates the danger?