As a reminder to the wider HN: LLMs are only statistical models. They cannot reason, they cannot think, they can only statistically (and non-factually) reproduc

As a reminder to the wider HN: LLMs are only statistical models. They cannot reason, they cannot think, they can only statistically (and non-factually) reproduce what they were trained on. It is not an AI. This person, sadly, and unfortunately, gaslit themselves using the LLM. They need professional help. This is not a judgement. The Psypost article is a warning to professionals more than it is anything else: patients _do_ gaslight themselves into absurd situations, and LLMs just help accelerate that process, but the patient had to be willing to do it and was looking for an enabler and found it in an LLM. Although I do believe LLMs should not be used for "chat" models, and only explicitly, on-rails, text completion and generation tasks (in the functional lorem ipsum sense), this does not actually seem to be the fault of the LLM directly. I think providers should be forced to warn users that LLMs cannot factually reproduce anything, but I think this person would have still weaponized LLMs against themselves, and this would have been the same outcome.