4 ms·

Have a large part of the population always been susceptible to insane conspiracies and psychosis or is this recent phenomenon? The feels less of a ChatGPT probl

Have a large part of the population always been susceptible to insane conspiracies and psychosis or is this recent phenomenon? The feels less of a ChatGPT problem and something more is at play.

morkalork 1y ago
Yes. I see this is as the digital equivalent of the people who convince themselves to believe that colloidal silver will heal their ailments and turn themselves blue
jalk 1y ago
I.e. Bleach against covid edit: A quick google search shows, there is no evidence of anybody actually in-gesting/jecting bleach to fight COVID
- philipallstar 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - mort96 1y ago
    Not sure what exactly you use "patriarchy" to mean here, but the idea that positions of power and prestige in society are occupied more by men than by women is kind of just a statistical fact. Look at the gender ratios of CEOs in the Fortune 500, or the gender ratios of US presidents, or any number of other positions of power
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      This is a motte and bailey fallacy. The reason this difference has an ominous-sounding name, or a name at all, is because there's an implicit "this is a global conspiracy against women" attached.
  - jmkd 1y ago
    What many misunderstand about the patriarchy is in thinking its an agreed, secret, organised system of ensuring male dominance. That perspective is so easy to refute, this refutation gets equated with the non-existence of the patriarchy itself. But the patriarchy is simply an unagreed, mostly transparent and organic coincidence of male dominance. There is no mysterious cabal of men saying let's pay men more than women, but men are paid more than women anyway. Likewise there has never been a female US president, or chess world champion, or F1 champion, which does not actually point to talent but to inequality. You might say the patriarchy is not a diagnosis, but a symptom. The facts of male advantage in society are irrefutable, and if you consider that they permeate every sphere from public to private, social to corporate, across age and culture for many thousands of years, it doesn't hold water to claim this symptom doesn't exist. It's just not a conspiracy theory, that's all.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      > What many misunderstand about the patriarchy is in thinking its an agreed, secret, organised system of ensuring male dominance. That perspective is so easy to refute, this refutation gets equated with the non-existence of the patriarchy itself. This confusion is a deliberate outcome of the name "the patriarchy". > Likewise there has never been a female US president, or chess world champion, or F1 champion, which does not actually point to talent but to inequality. This is weasel words, though. "Inequality" covers outcome and opportunity. You're pointing at unequal outcomes to imply unequal opportunities, due to a giant anti-female conspiracy. Women in chess even have easier-to-attain rankings (WGM is basically equivalent to IM for men and women). There's nothing unfair about chess rankings or the game, other than women having easier-to-access rankings. It's just outcomes based on population preferences and aptitudes. > You might say the patriarchy is not a diagnosis, but a symptom. You might say that the dominance of black players at the top levels of the NBA is not a diagnosis, but a symptom as well. But to say either is still to imply a conspiracy.
CyberDildonics 1y ago
I think religion caught a lot of people with community and self righteous beliefs. Now religious thinking is bleeding over into other sources of misinformation.
keybored 1y ago
How can technology be the problem?—it’s people, obviously There’s one on every thread in this place.
- infecto 1y ago
  Did you have anything worth adding or are you here to simply be a low quality troll? I understand you have a religious level of belief in your opinion that it clouds your ability to communicate with others but perhaps ask thoughtful questions before lowering the quality. I am not absolving technology but as someone who has never been impacted by the problems it amazes me that so many people get caught up like this and I simply wonder if it’s always there but the internet and increased communication makes it easier.
  - keybored 1y ago
    > Did you have anything worth adding or are you here to simply be a low quality troll? I understand you have a religious level of belief in your opinion that it clouds your ability to communicate with others but perhaps ask thoughtful questions before lowering the quality. And you?
    - infecto 1y ago
      So typical of the low quality post to try to turn it right back around. No sorry, you are the one opening up with hyperbolic comments that add no value. I am genuinely curious if this has always been an issue throughout all of humanity. And I only reply to you in the hope that you actually add constructive thought but clearly not.
      - keybored 1y ago
        > Have a large part of the population always been susceptible to insane conspiracies and psychosis or is this recent phenomenon? I read this more like a question biased towards “yes” because there is nothing supporting it. > The feels less of a ChatGPT problem and something more is at play. Even if the begged-for answer is true... both things can be true. And on the specific topic of LLMs you can find ways to solve that particular problem which reduces the overall problem. Because if the root problem is “stupid people” or “naive people” or whatever else: you get less accidents if you make the territory less booby trapped. But these rhetorical topic changers—if they are indulged instead of being interrupted—tend not to approach any fruitful discussion. And that’s despite whatever intentions that the original poster had. Because the side topic then either turns towards arguing for or against the premise. Or else the premise is accepted and all we get are aw-shucks grandiose statements about how human nature is so-and-so and that etc. etc. some subset of the population will just get bamboozled anyway and technology is irrelevant and fin conversation. Yes despite the intentions of the OP who might have indeed wanted to “broaden the conversation”. Because (1) this particular topic can’t be analyzed when things are generalized so aggressively, and (2) that’s just how this misanthropic community acts on these topics. In aggregate.
voidUpdate 1y ago
Yes, absolutely. Many people have fallen for things like "Bleach will cure autism", "vaccines cause autism", "9/11 was an inside job", "the moon landings were fake" etc
BlackFly 1y ago
The psychosis was due to bromism (bloodstream bromine buildup to toxic levels) due to health advice to replace sodium chloride with sodium bromide in an attempt to eliminate chloride from his diet. The bromide suggestion is stated as coming from ChatGPT. The doctors actually noticed the bromine levels first and then inquired about how it got to be like that and got the story about the individual asking for chloride elimination ideas. Before there was ChatGPT the internet had trolls trying to convince strangers to follow a recipe to make beautiful crystals. The recipe would produce mustard gas. Credulous individuals often have such accidents.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- infecto 1y ago
  Sure but this is in line with people falling into psychosis events because ChatGPT agrees with them. I am curious how much of the population is at risk for this. It’s hard for me to comprehend but clearly we have scammers that take advantage of old people and it works.
computerthings 1y ago
[dead]
Someone 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness lists cases from the 1400s (dancing mania). Yes, they were less widespread, but I think that’s because the world is much more connected nowadays.
pjc50 1y ago
There's a solid 20% of the population who put really weird answers on surveys. The entire supplements industry relies on people taking things "for their health" based on inadequate or misleading information.
- ben_w 1y ago
  It's probably much less than 20%*, though surveys vary. But even without that, your core point is valid: in general, yes people believe a lot of untrue things. My mum took all the New Age stuff seriously, so I did too until my early 20s. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#Lizardman's_Constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#Lizardman's_C...

Have a large part of the population always been susceptible to insane conspiracies and psychosis or is this recent phenomenon? The feels less of a ChatGPT problem and something more is at play.

morkalork 1y ago

Yes. I see this is as the digital equivalent of the people who convince themselves to believe that colloidal silver will heal their ailments and turn themselves blue

jalk 1y ago

I.e. Bleach against covid edit: A quick google search shows, there is no evidence of anybody actually in-gesting/jecting bleach to fight COVID

philipallstar 1y ago
[flagged]
- mort96 1y ago
  Not sure what exactly you use "patriarchy" to mean here, but the idea that positions of power and prestige in society are occupied more by men than by women is kind of just a statistical fact. Look at the gender ratios of CEOs in the Fortune 500, or the gender ratios of US presidents, or any number of other positions of power
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    This is a motte and bailey fallacy. The reason this difference has an ominous-sounding name, or a name at all, is because there's an implicit "this is a global conspiracy against women" attached.
- jmkd 1y ago
  What many misunderstand about the patriarchy is in thinking its an agreed, secret, organised system of ensuring male dominance. That perspective is so easy to refute, this refutation gets equated with the non-existence of the patriarchy itself. But the patriarchy is simply an unagreed, mostly transparent and organic coincidence of male dominance. There is no mysterious cabal of men saying let's pay men more than women, but men are paid more than women anyway. Likewise there has never been a female US president, or chess world champion, or F1 champion, which does not actually point to talent but to inequality. You might say the patriarchy is not a diagnosis, but a symptom. The facts of male advantage in society are irrefutable, and if you consider that they permeate every sphere from public to private, social to corporate, across age and culture for many thousands of years, it doesn't hold water to claim this symptom doesn't exist. It's just not a conspiracy theory, that's all.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    > What many misunderstand about the patriarchy is in thinking its an agreed, secret, organised system of ensuring male dominance. That perspective is so easy to refute, this refutation gets equated with the non-existence of the patriarchy itself. This confusion is a deliberate outcome of the name "the patriarchy". > Likewise there has never been a female US president, or chess world champion, or F1 champion, which does not actually point to talent but to inequality. This is weasel words, though. "Inequality" covers outcome and opportunity. You're pointing at unequal outcomes to imply unequal opportunities, due to a giant anti-female conspiracy. Women in chess even have easier-to-attain rankings (WGM is basically equivalent to IM for men and women). There's nothing unfair about chess rankings or the game, other than women having easier-to-access rankings. It's just outcomes based on population preferences and aptitudes. > You might say the patriarchy is not a diagnosis, but a symptom. You might say that the dominance of black players at the top levels of the NBA is not a diagnosis, but a symptom as well. But to say either is still to imply a conspiracy.

CyberDildonics 1y ago

I think religion caught a lot of people with community and self righteous beliefs. Now religious thinking is bleeding over into other sources of misinformation.

keybored 1y ago

How can technology be the problem?—it’s people, obviously There’s one on every thread in this place.

infecto 1y ago
Did you have anything worth adding or are you here to simply be a low quality troll? I understand you have a religious level of belief in your opinion that it clouds your ability to communicate with others but perhaps ask thoughtful questions before lowering the quality. I am not absolving technology but as someone who has never been impacted by the problems it amazes me that so many people get caught up like this and I simply wonder if it’s always there but the internet and increased communication makes it easier.
- keybored 1y ago
  > Did you have anything worth adding or are you here to simply be a low quality troll? I understand you have a religious level of belief in your opinion that it clouds your ability to communicate with others but perhaps ask thoughtful questions before lowering the quality. And you?
  - infecto 1y ago
    So typical of the low quality post to try to turn it right back around. No sorry, you are the one opening up with hyperbolic comments that add no value. I am genuinely curious if this has always been an issue throughout all of humanity. And I only reply to you in the hope that you actually add constructive thought but clearly not.
    - keybored 1y ago
      > Have a large part of the population always been susceptible to insane conspiracies and psychosis or is this recent phenomenon? I read this more like a question biased towards “yes” because there is nothing supporting it. > The feels less of a ChatGPT problem and something more is at play. Even if the begged-for answer is true... both things can be true. And on the specific topic of LLMs you can find ways to solve that particular problem which reduces the overall problem. Because if the root problem is “stupid people” or “naive people” or whatever else: you get less accidents if you make the territory less booby trapped. But these rhetorical topic changers—if they are indulged instead of being interrupted—tend not to approach any fruitful discussion. And that’s despite whatever intentions that the original poster had. Because the side topic then either turns towards arguing for or against the premise. Or else the premise is accepted and all we get are aw-shucks grandiose statements about how human nature is so-and-so and that etc. etc. some subset of the population will just get bamboozled anyway and technology is irrelevant and fin conversation. Yes despite the intentions of the OP who might have indeed wanted to “broaden the conversation”. Because (1) this particular topic can’t be analyzed when things are generalized so aggressively, and (2) that’s just how this misanthropic community acts on these topics. In aggregate.

voidUpdate 1y ago

Yes, absolutely. Many people have fallen for things like "Bleach will cure autism", "vaccines cause autism", "9/11 was an inside job", "the moon landings were fake" etc

BlackFly 1y ago

The psychosis was due to bromism (bloodstream bromine buildup to toxic levels) due to health advice to replace sodium chloride with sodium bromide in an attempt to eliminate chloride from his diet. The bromide suggestion is stated as coming from ChatGPT. The doctors actually noticed the bromine levels first and then inquired about how it got to be like that and got the story about the individual asking for chloride elimination ideas. Before there was ChatGPT the internet had trolls trying to convince strangers to follow a recipe to make beautiful crystals. The recipe would produce mustard gas. Credulous individuals often have such accidents.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
infecto 1y ago
Sure but this is in line with people falling into psychosis events because ChatGPT agrees with them. I am curious how much of the population is at risk for this. It’s hard for me to comprehend but clearly we have scammers that take advantage of old people and it works.

computerthings 1y ago

[dead]

Someone 1y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness lists cases from the 1400s (dancing mania). Yes, they were less widespread, but I think that’s because the world is much more connected nowadays.

pjc50 1y ago

There's a solid 20% of the population who put really weird answers on surveys. The entire supplements industry relies on people taking things "for their health" based on inadequate or misleading information.

ben_w 1y ago
It's probably much less than 20%*, though surveys vary. But even without that, your core point is valid: in general, yes people believe a lot of untrue things. My mum took all the New Age stuff seriously, so I did too until my early 20s. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#Lizardman's_Constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#Lizardman's_C...