2 ms·

This is sad. It appears to me to be psychosis. It's really telling in their reddit comment where they use words like raising an AI and anthropomorphizing his op

This is sad. It appears to me to be psychosis. It's really telling in their reddit comment where they use words like raising an AI and anthropomorphizing his openclaw that he's got an unhealthy attachment. Not trying to play armchair psychologist here, but if you've ever been around someone going through a mental episode there's nothing funny about this.

raadore 7mo ago
“…it appears to me to be psychosis. It’s really telling in their Reddit comment where they use words like raising an AI…” Is this any different from people today calling their dogs and cats “my baby”? Transporting four legged animals in baby carriages, is that psychosis?
- inglor_cz 7mo ago
  If enough people do $bizarre_thing, it stops being psychotic and starts being "culture".
  - rmah 7mo ago
    Lol, you know this is sorta sad but true.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- unethical_ban 7mo ago
  One is a flesh and bone being with a brain and one is not. I can't believe you equate a text output algorithm to an animal in terms of consciousness or authenticity. That said, someone diving too far into the "dog parent" vibe is annoying to me personally. I think it's more comprehensible than loving `sycophant.sh`.
- heliumtera 7mo ago
  You're comparing a conscious and intelligent animal with a statical model. People can nurture animals but cannot language models. If you're confused about this go seek help now.
- rmah 7mo ago
  IMO, it's similar but worse. at least dogs and cats are living beings.
- palmotea 7mo ago
  > Is this any different from people today calling their dogs and cats “my baby”? Transporting four legged animals in baby carriages, is that psychosis? It's not psychosis, but it's also not healthy to blur the line between a pet and a child, but at least a pet is a living thing that can know you and have a relationship with you. But if someone's calling their laptop their baby and carrying it around in a baby carriage, I'd be comfortable calling that psychosis.
- password54321 7mo ago
  No, animals can feel, your Nvidia gpu can't.
kelseyfrog 7mo ago
Technically this is a delusion and not necessarily psychosis. Delusions can exist without full blown psychosis or accompany it. Example: the unshakable belief that God is real is a delusion but not necessarily psychotic. My pet theory is one of ontological conscienceness paredoila. Just like face paredoila is a heightened sensitivity to seeing faces in inanimate objects, we observe consciousness through behavior including language with varying sensitivity. While our face detection circuitight be triggered by knots on a tree, we have other inputs which negate it so that we ultimately conclude that it is not in fact a face. The same principal applies to consciousness. The consciousness trigger is triggered, but for some people the negating input can't overcome it and they conclude that consciousness really is in there. I've observed a number of negating reasons like, a disbelief in substrate independence and knowledge of failure modes, but I'm curious what an exhaustive list would look like. Does your consciousness circuit get triggered? I know mine does. What beliefs override it preventing you from concluding AI is conscious?
- giantrobot 7mo ago
  People very commonly equate linguistic fluency with intelligence and the lack of fluency with stupidity. LLMs are very good at linguistic fluency which I think is one of the major triggers of the consciousness pareidolia (I like that term). When previous generation LLMs spit out absurdist slop I think it was much easier for people avoid the fluency trap.
- alpaca128 7mo ago
  > Does your consciousness circuit get triggered? In the short term, but over time the patterns get more obvious and the illusion breaks down. Generative AI is incredible at first impressions.

raadore 7mo ago

“…it appears to me to be psychosis. It’s really telling in their Reddit comment where they use words like raising an AI…” Is this any different from people today calling their dogs and cats “my baby”? Transporting four legged animals in baby carriages, is that psychosis?

inglor_cz 7mo ago
If enough people do $bizarre_thing, it stops being psychotic and starts being "culture".
- rmah 7mo ago
  Lol, you know this is sorta sad but true.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
unethical_ban 7mo ago
One is a flesh and bone being with a brain and one is not. I can't believe you equate a text output algorithm to an animal in terms of consciousness or authenticity. That said, someone diving too far into the "dog parent" vibe is annoying to me personally. I think it's more comprehensible than loving `sycophant.sh`.
heliumtera 7mo ago
You're comparing a conscious and intelligent animal with a statical model. People can nurture animals but cannot language models. If you're confused about this go seek help now.
rmah 7mo ago
IMO, it's similar but worse. at least dogs and cats are living beings.
palmotea 7mo ago
> Is this any different from people today calling their dogs and cats “my baby”? Transporting four legged animals in baby carriages, is that psychosis? It's not psychosis, but it's also not healthy to blur the line between a pet and a child, but at least a pet is a living thing that can know you and have a relationship with you. But if someone's calling their laptop their baby and carrying it around in a baby carriage, I'd be comfortable calling that psychosis.
password54321 7mo ago
No, animals can feel, your Nvidia gpu can't.

kelseyfrog 7mo ago

Technically this is a delusion and not necessarily psychosis. Delusions can exist without full blown psychosis or accompany it. Example: the unshakable belief that God is real is a delusion but not necessarily psychotic. My pet theory is one of ontological conscienceness paredoila. Just like face paredoila is a heightened sensitivity to seeing faces in inanimate objects, we observe consciousness through behavior including language with varying sensitivity. While our face detection circuitight be triggered by knots on a tree, we have other inputs which negate it so that we ultimately conclude that it is not in fact a face. The same principal applies to consciousness. The consciousness trigger is triggered, but for some people the negating input can't overcome it and they conclude that consciousness really is in there. I've observed a number of negating reasons like, a disbelief in substrate independence and knowledge of failure modes, but I'm curious what an exhaustive list would look like. Does your consciousness circuit get triggered? I know mine does. What beliefs override it preventing you from concluding AI is conscious?

giantrobot 7mo ago
People very commonly equate linguistic fluency with intelligence and the lack of fluency with stupidity. LLMs are very good at linguistic fluency which I think is one of the major triggers of the consciousness pareidolia (I like that term). When previous generation LLMs spit out absurdist slop I think it was much easier for people avoid the fluency trap.
alpaca128 7mo ago
> Does your consciousness circuit get triggered? In the short term, but over time the patterns get more obvious and the illusion breaks down. Generative AI is incredible at first impressions.