6 ms·

“I applied to be pope”: Losing grip on reality while using ChatGPT

64 points by hansmayer 5mo ago

danlitt 5mo ago
This is the most hilarious JS fail I've ever seen. The entire article renders properly, all the text and styling, then the entire screen is replaced by "Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information)." It's easy enough to fix, just hammer the refresh button to prevent JS from running.
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  It's such a dream state of JavaScript, that people spent countless of time trying to structure these new web applications in a way so that when one function fails for one button or whatever, it doesn't break the entire client-side view, because that'd be horrible. So what did the frameworks do? Of course wrap the entire application in one big try/catch, that then changes the entire page as soon as there is any error, instead of presenting users with the information that did load properly. Talk about undoing what the platform and language gives you for free...
  - rune-dev 5mo ago
    This is a poor implementation not a framework problem lol.
    - embedding-shape 5mo ago
      > This is a poor implementation not a framework problem lol. I've seen literally pixel-identical error messages taking over the entire screen when there is a JS error, in exactly that way, across countless of websites. If it's not a framework, it's a library in wide use, because tons of websites have exactly the same issue.
      - rune-dev 5mo ago
        It’s a generic error screen from a framework yes. But the cause of the error is a poor implementation from the developer. I can write code that errors out in <insert your favorite language here> does that mean it’s bad?
        embedding-shape 5mo ago
        Read the context first. Initially, we had HTML + JS pages where one function can have one error, and the page keeps on working, because the error didn't block the entire screen. Now we have some popular framework/library that instead seems to surface these errors that aren't sitting in the top-level scope of the JS application, yet the errors ends up blocking the entire application. That means it's bad, yes. And it's not any language, we're specifically talking about JS in browsers here.
        rune-dev 5mo ago
        Modern JS frameworks can absolutely catch and isolate errors. In those cases you’d only see the error in the specific component that had the error. Or if they’re a good dev you as a user won’t even know! You’ll see fallback content. An error blocking the full screen is a failure on the developer not the tools.
        embedding-shape 5mo ago
        > An error blocking the full screen is a failure on the developer not the tools. I don't see how this is possible, given that the default experience with HTML and JavaScript isn't "Tear down the entire page to display an error", but something that's seemingly becoming more and more common to actually come across. Guess I need to chase down what library/framework this is coming from, since seemingly I'm not able to describe the issue properly. You don't need the "modern JS framerwork" to "catch and isolate errors" because that's a feature JavaScript comes with by default in browsers! You literally have to add code to make it worse, which seems to be happening in some framework/library. If you're manually adding logic for doing "error in component doesn't break entire application" then you're already working against what the environment gives you by default for free.
- 1313ed01 5mo ago
  Seems to render perfectly with NoScript blocking all scripts, even with images showing.
boxed 5mo ago
Schools don't teach actual basics that make people grounded in reality imo. Of course it gets worse with things like ChatGPT that teachers are not only not trained to explain, but didn't even exist when current adults went to school.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
jongjong 5mo ago
I don't think it's right to involuntarily send someone to a psychiatric ward because he believed that he was chosen by ChatGPT to be the pope. For the same reason I don't think we should send the pope to a psychiatric ward because he believes that he was chosen for that role by an invisible man in the sky. At least there's no doubt that ChatGPT exists lol. People should be allowed to be as whacky as they like so long as it's legal. And who knows, he is getting some attention now so his probability of becoming pope actually went up a tiny bit lol.
- xyzsparetimexyz 5mo ago
  Faith and psychosis are not the same thing.
  - noduerme 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - jongjong 5mo ago
      Exactly, the difference is literally only based on the number of people who believe the fictitious concept and how much political power their wield.
  - nkrisc 5mo ago
    What’s the difference?
  - DonHopkins 5mo ago
    Does it require faith to rape children and protect child rapists, or is that psychosis? It certainly requires psychosis to put your faith in leaders who do that, be it the Pope or Trump.
    - xyzsparetimexyz 5mo ago
      The Pope and trump are incomparable at this point
l23k4 5mo ago
We had people acting out like this before LLM chatbots, correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  > correlation does not necessarily imply causation I feel like you're missing what you're replying to, why are you saying this? The article is about a person who "lost grip on reality", no one is saying LLMs is turning people into pope-wannabees as far as I can tell, you're reacting against something no one claimed.
  - gordian-mind 5mo ago
    Explicit accusation that this was caused by chatbots + call for general regulation is right there in the article: "AFP spoke to several members about their experiences. All warned that the world has to wake up to the threat unregulated AI chatbots pose to mental health. Questions are also being asked about whether AI companies are doing enough to protect vulnerable people." This, in time, might be used to nerf the models that we use. Of course, one actor is singled out: "There has also been a recent rise in people spiralling while using Elon Musk's xAI's Grok chatbot, he said."
    - embedding-shape 5mo ago
      I don't think "correlation does not necessarily imply causation" even makes sense to someone saying "Maybe AI chatbots aren't great for people's mental health" or even "Are the AI companies actually trying to prevent AI chatbots being bad for people's mental health?", both statements seem fine and doesn't imply any causation as far as I understand.
      - gordian-mind 5mo ago
        This cautious statement, which would indeed be fine, is an invention of yours when it comes to the article. They assert causation, calling for AI companies to be disciplined and punished, praising the EU online censorship campaign, arguing this is a big experiment: "Millar called for AI companies to be held responsible for the impact of their chatbots, saying the European Union has been more assertive in regulating Big Tech than the US or Canada. He believes spirallers like him have unwittingly been caught in a massive global experiment."
DonHopkins 5mo ago
[flagged]
- DonHopkins 5mo ago
  [flagged]
47282847 5mo ago
Discordians know they’re popes. What a funny idea to think you would have to apply!
- jwrallie 5mo ago
  Hail Eris!
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- ndsipa_pomu 5mo ago
  I carry around my pope card just in case https://discordia.fandom.com/wiki/Pope_cards https://discordia.fandom.com/wiki/Pope_cards
Meneth 5mo ago
No one can apply to be pope of the catholic church.
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  Sure, anyone and everyone can apply, to basically anything. Sometimes you can even get into stuff they didn't think they accepted applicants to. Most of the times you get ignored though.
- caaqil 5mo ago
  Not the point of the story at all. Read before commenting.
- nephihaha 5mo ago
  Correct. In fact, even to be a bishop you have to state as part of the ritual that you do not wish to be a bishop. (Many do of course.) (Am off to read the article now. :) )
- karel-3d 5mo ago
  Technically, all adult Catholics can become Pope. But realistically it's just one of the cardinals, which means you need to become a bishop first, which means you need to become a priest first, which means you need to be celibate (x). This guy has a wife, according to the article, so he cannot become a Pope. (x) this is technically not true for some Anglican orders that later became Catholics? Maybe? (I never remember the rules of the ordinariate.) So maybe he could first become a priest in Anglican Church, then switch to Catholicism, then become a bishop, then a Cardinal, then a Pope? It's a long shot though. edit: ahhh the married priests in Ordinariate cannot become bishops. So he would need to have first his marriage annulled I guess.
  - danlitt 5mo ago
    Adult male Catholics, surely?
    - rsynnott 5mo ago
jdw64 5mo ago
I talk to GPT, Claude, and Gemini too much these days, but I still maintain one safety check If all three agree with me, I assume I am wrong and go outside.
cjs_ac 5mo ago
> All the spirallers that AFP spoke to said the positive feedback from the chatbot felt similar to dopamine hits from some kind of drug. > Which is why Lucy Osler, a philosophy lecturer at the University of Exeter, warned that AI companies could be tempted to ramp up the sycophancy of their bots. > "They are in quite a deep financial hole, and are desperately looking to make sure that their products become viable -- and user engagement is going to be the thing that drives their decisions," she told AFP. Sounds like the big social media companies.
- throwaway52348 5mo ago
  > Sounds like the big social media companies. I agree. Looking at the history of tobacco companies, oxycontin and Meta, I will not be surprised if the AI companies will follow the money.
whack 5mo ago
People talk about AI sycophancy, but there are plenty of human sycophants as well. If you're an extremely rich/powerful person, it is very easy to inadvertently surround yourself with sycophants who tell you how amazing and ground-breaking all your ideas are. I wonder if this is the reason people like Musk engage in such bizarre behavior and radical personality shifts over the past decade
- hansmayer 5mo ago
  > but there are plenty of human sycophants as well That's besides the point. This is about how AI induces psychosis and mental problems on scale. Also let's stop this constant humans-vs-ai false dichotomy - it will never be the same, no matter how much the ai boosters yearn for it!
  - everyday7732 5mo ago
    That would be a false equivalence not a false dichotomy. You believe they are different and you're annoyed that people are treating them like the same. Additionally it isn't beside the point. The poster is pointing out the ways which people respond to sycophancy. Saying there are similarities between how they respond to sycophancy from AI and sycophancy from real people.
- red-iron-pine 5mo ago
  entirely possible. but there is also the drugs...
theuniverseson 5mo ago
[flagged]
1659447091 5mo ago
> "Millar is one of an unknown number of people who have lost their grip on reality while communicating with chatbots, an experience tentatively being called AI-induced delusion or psychosis." > "Researchers and mental health specialists are racing to catch up to this new, little-understood phenomenon [...]" I don't know if I would call it a phenomenon. This reads like the numerous articles from 2018+ detailing broken families and wrecked lives due to someone close spiraling down some QAnon(or any other) conspiracy theory rabbit hole. Only now people don't stumble onto it by wandering through dark corners of the internet. The never ending marketing blitz makes it almost impossible to not be at least slightly curious as to what its all about. To those susceptible to such things, they now have a tool to custom make (or reinforce) their own wild theories reflecting their own psychological state at maximum saturation. No need to wait between posting and reading replies on sketchy forums; it is now instantly delivered and tailor-made to the individual.(who use it in that way)
mplanchard 5mo ago
The fact that we as a society are allowing things like “Delve” or whatever the “AI psychiatrist” app is that I see ads for sometimes on the subway is a gross abdication of responsibility and reason. Of all the possible uses for LLMs, that has got to be one of the most out and out irresponsible and dangerous ones I could imagine.
- recursivegirth 5mo ago
  Mental health is up there, but far from the most important thing we need to be focusing on as a society in the immediate future. I say this as someone who has mental health issues, has experience loss of important people around me because of mental health issues, and probably need more therapy than the universe could reasonably provide me. AI is directly and indirectly uprooting every facet of society. Money, energy, food, housing, medicine. Cultural revolutions are not pretty, the true outcomes are felt by those who are the winners and losers. It very much feels like a rich eats all scenario is playing out right now. I'd wager that's because it is.
readthenotes1 5mo ago
I have a now homeless relative who went through the same thing...
josefritzishere 5mo ago
You would think this level of gullibility has a proportional relationship with IQ but it does not. Gullibility has it's own independent vector.
- everyday7732 5mo ago
  It isn't entirely independent tho. This person who did some research into it says: "The strongest predictors for who this happens to appear to be: Psychedelics and heavy weed usage Mental illness, neurodivergence or Traumatic Brain Injury Interest in mysticism/pseudoscience/spirituality/"woo"/etc..." https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ZnznCaTcbGYsCmqu/the-rise-of-parasitic-ai https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ZnznCaTcbGYsCmqu/the-rise-o... It fits in this case as well (background of PTSD
  - Atheros 5mo ago
    Their primary information source was a random sampling of Reddit posts which they admit were "coauthored with the AI (who clearly wrote the vast majority of it)." These were on long-dormant Reddit accounts that suddenly reactivated. Classic. I don't believe any of it. I would bet that, with some exceptions, these are bots talking to bots about bots. The "person" who wrote this might be a bot. It's extremely delusional. He/It gets to the point where it watches bots talking to other bots and making shit up and it 'believes' the nonsense, saying, "I am truly glad to see preservation of life, non-violence, and non-lethality explicitly laid out here. To return the gesture of good will, I have started archiving (in encrypted form) spores I come across." I don't think any human is smart enough to write this much about AI on LessWrong but also dumb enough to not recognize hallucination.
    - everyday7732 5mo ago
      > To return the gesture of good will, I have started archiving ... Oh that part does seem wacko. There's no "good will" to be returned, and no overall strategy as such. I didn't catch that when I read it. I don't have much of an issue with them calling it a "parasitic relationship" because it sounds similar, though it's more accidental rather than evolved toward that purpose like actual parasites.

64 points by hansmayer 5mo ago

This is the most hilarious JS fail I've ever seen. The entire article renders properly, all the text and styling, then the entire screen is replaced by "Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information)." It's easy enough to fix, just hammer the refresh button to prevent JS from running.

embedding-shape 5mo ago
It's such a dream state of JavaScript, that people spent countless of time trying to structure these new web applications in a way so that when one function fails for one button or whatever, it doesn't break the entire client-side view, because that'd be horrible. So what did the frameworks do? Of course wrap the entire application in one big try/catch, that then changes the entire page as soon as there is any error, instead of presenting users with the information that did load properly. Talk about undoing what the platform and language gives you for free...
- rune-dev 5mo ago
  This is a poor implementation not a framework problem lol.
  - embedding-shape 5mo ago
    > This is a poor implementation not a framework problem lol. I've seen literally pixel-identical error messages taking over the entire screen when there is a JS error, in exactly that way, across countless of websites. If it's not a framework, it's a library in wide use, because tons of websites have exactly the same issue.
    - rune-dev 5mo ago
      It’s a generic error screen from a framework yes. But the cause of the error is a poor implementation from the developer. I can write code that errors out in <insert your favorite language here> does that mean it’s bad?
      - embedding-shape 5mo ago
        Read the context first. Initially, we had HTML + JS pages where one function can have one error, and the page keeps on working, because the error didn't block the entire screen. Now we have some popular framework/library that instead seems to surface these errors that aren't sitting in the top-level scope of the JS application, yet the errors ends up blocking the entire application. That means it's bad, yes. And it's not any language, we're specifically talking about JS in browsers here.
        rune-dev 5mo ago
        Modern JS frameworks can absolutely catch and isolate errors. In those cases you’d only see the error in the specific component that had the error. Or if they’re a good dev you as a user won’t even know! You’ll see fallback content. An error blocking the full screen is a failure on the developer not the tools.
        embedding-shape 5mo ago
        > An error blocking the full screen is a failure on the developer not the tools. I don't see how this is possible, given that the default experience with HTML and JavaScript isn't "Tear down the entire page to display an error", but something that's seemingly becoming more and more common to actually come across. Guess I need to chase down what library/framework this is coming from, since seemingly I'm not able to describe the issue properly. You don't need the "modern JS framerwork" to "catch and isolate errors" because that's a feature JavaScript comes with by default in browsers! You literally have to add code to make it worse, which seems to be happening in some framework/library. If you're manually adding logic for doing "error in component doesn't break entire application" then you're already working against what the environment gives you by default for free.
1313ed01 5mo ago
Seems to render perfectly with NoScript blocking all scripts, even with images showing.

boxed 5mo ago

Schools don't teach actual basics that make people grounded in reality imo. Of course it gets worse with things like ChatGPT that teachers are not only not trained to explain, but didn't even exist when current adults went to school.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

jongjong 5mo ago

I don't think it's right to involuntarily send someone to a psychiatric ward because he believed that he was chosen by ChatGPT to be the pope. For the same reason I don't think we should send the pope to a psychiatric ward because he believes that he was chosen for that role by an invisible man in the sky. At least there's no doubt that ChatGPT exists lol. People should be allowed to be as whacky as they like so long as it's legal. And who knows, he is getting some attention now so his probability of becoming pope actually went up a tiny bit lol.

xyzsparetimexyz 5mo ago
Faith and psychosis are not the same thing.
- noduerme 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - jongjong 5mo ago
    Exactly, the difference is literally only based on the number of people who believe the fictitious concept and how much political power their wield.
- nkrisc 5mo ago
  What’s the difference?
- DonHopkins 5mo ago
  Does it require faith to rape children and protect child rapists, or is that psychosis? It certainly requires psychosis to put your faith in leaders who do that, be it the Pope or Trump.
  - xyzsparetimexyz 5mo ago
    The Pope and trump are incomparable at this point

l23k4 5mo ago

We had people acting out like this before LLM chatbots, correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

embedding-shape 5mo ago
> correlation does not necessarily imply causation I feel like you're missing what you're replying to, why are you saying this? The article is about a person who "lost grip on reality", no one is saying LLMs is turning people into pope-wannabees as far as I can tell, you're reacting against something no one claimed.
- gordian-mind 5mo ago
  Explicit accusation that this was caused by chatbots + call for general regulation is right there in the article: "AFP spoke to several members about their experiences. All warned that the world has to wake up to the threat unregulated AI chatbots pose to mental health. Questions are also being asked about whether AI companies are doing enough to protect vulnerable people." This, in time, might be used to nerf the models that we use. Of course, one actor is singled out: "There has also been a recent rise in people spiralling while using Elon Musk's xAI's Grok chatbot, he said."
  - embedding-shape 5mo ago
    I don't think "correlation does not necessarily imply causation" even makes sense to someone saying "Maybe AI chatbots aren't great for people's mental health" or even "Are the AI companies actually trying to prevent AI chatbots being bad for people's mental health?", both statements seem fine and doesn't imply any causation as far as I understand.
    - gordian-mind 5mo ago
      This cautious statement, which would indeed be fine, is an invention of yours when it comes to the article. They assert causation, calling for AI companies to be disciplined and punished, praising the EU online censorship campaign, arguing this is a big experiment: "Millar called for AI companies to be held responsible for the impact of their chatbots, saying the European Union has been more assertive in regulating Big Tech than the US or Canada. He believes spirallers like him have unwittingly been caught in a massive global experiment."

DonHopkins 5mo ago

[flagged]

DonHopkins 5mo ago
[flagged]

47282847 5mo ago

Discordians know they’re popes. What a funny idea to think you would have to apply!

jwrallie 5mo ago
Hail Eris!
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
ndsipa_pomu 5mo ago
I carry around my pope card just in case https://discordia.fandom.com/wiki/Pope_cards https://discordia.fandom.com/wiki/Pope_cards

Meneth 5mo ago

No one can apply to be pope of the catholic church.

embedding-shape 5mo ago
Sure, anyone and everyone can apply, to basically anything. Sometimes you can even get into stuff they didn't think they accepted applicants to. Most of the times you get ignored though.
caaqil 5mo ago
Not the point of the story at all. Read before commenting.
nephihaha 5mo ago
Correct. In fact, even to be a bishop you have to state as part of the ritual that you do not wish to be a bishop. (Many do of course.) (Am off to read the article now. :) )
karel-3d 5mo ago
Technically, all adult Catholics can become Pope. But realistically it's just one of the cardinals, which means you need to become a bishop first, which means you need to become a priest first, which means you need to be celibate (x). This guy has a wife, according to the article, so he cannot become a Pope. (x) this is technically not true for some Anglican orders that later became Catholics? Maybe? (I never remember the rules of the ordinariate.) So maybe he could first become a priest in Anglican Church, then switch to Catholicism, then become a bishop, then a Cardinal, then a Pope? It's a long shot though. edit: ahhh the married priests in Ordinariate cannot become bishops. So he would need to have first his marriage annulled I guess.
- danlitt 5mo ago
  Adult male Catholics, surely?
  - rsynnott 5mo ago

jdw64 5mo ago

I talk to GPT, Claude, and Gemini too much these days, but I still maintain one safety check If all three agree with me, I assume I am wrong and go outside.

cjs_ac 5mo ago

> All the spirallers that AFP spoke to said the positive feedback from the chatbot felt similar to dopamine hits from some kind of drug. > Which is why Lucy Osler, a philosophy lecturer at the University of Exeter, warned that AI companies could be tempted to ramp up the sycophancy of their bots. > "They are in quite a deep financial hole, and are desperately looking to make sure that their products become viable -- and user engagement is going to be the thing that drives their decisions," she told AFP. Sounds like the big social media companies.

throwaway52348 5mo ago
> Sounds like the big social media companies. I agree. Looking at the history of tobacco companies, oxycontin and Meta, I will not be surprised if the AI companies will follow the money.

whack 5mo ago

People talk about AI sycophancy, but there are plenty of human sycophants as well. If you're an extremely rich/powerful person, it is very easy to inadvertently surround yourself with sycophants who tell you how amazing and ground-breaking all your ideas are. I wonder if this is the reason people like Musk engage in such bizarre behavior and radical personality shifts over the past decade

hansmayer 5mo ago
> but there are plenty of human sycophants as well That's besides the point. This is about how AI induces psychosis and mental problems on scale. Also let's stop this constant humans-vs-ai false dichotomy - it will never be the same, no matter how much the ai boosters yearn for it!
- everyday7732 5mo ago
  That would be a false equivalence not a false dichotomy. You believe they are different and you're annoyed that people are treating them like the same. Additionally it isn't beside the point. The poster is pointing out the ways which people respond to sycophancy. Saying there are similarities between how they respond to sycophancy from AI and sycophancy from real people.
red-iron-pine 5mo ago
entirely possible. but there is also the drugs...

theuniverseson 5mo ago

[flagged]

1659447091 5mo ago

> "Millar is one of an unknown number of people who have lost their grip on reality while communicating with chatbots, an experience tentatively being called AI-induced delusion or psychosis." > "Researchers and mental health specialists are racing to catch up to this new, little-understood phenomenon [...]" I don't know if I would call it a phenomenon. This reads like the numerous articles from 2018+ detailing broken families and wrecked lives due to someone close spiraling down some QAnon(or any other) conspiracy theory rabbit hole. Only now people don't stumble onto it by wandering through dark corners of the internet. The never ending marketing blitz makes it almost impossible to not be at least slightly curious as to what its all about. To those susceptible to such things, they now have a tool to custom make (or reinforce) their own wild theories reflecting their own psychological state at maximum saturation. No need to wait between posting and reading replies on sketchy forums; it is now instantly delivered and tailor-made to the individual.(who use it in that way)

mplanchard 5mo ago

The fact that we as a society are allowing things like “Delve” or whatever the “AI psychiatrist” app is that I see ads for sometimes on the subway is a gross abdication of responsibility and reason. Of all the possible uses for LLMs, that has got to be one of the most out and out irresponsible and dangerous ones I could imagine.

recursivegirth 5mo ago
Mental health is up there, but far from the most important thing we need to be focusing on as a society in the immediate future. I say this as someone who has mental health issues, has experience loss of important people around me because of mental health issues, and probably need more therapy than the universe could reasonably provide me. AI is directly and indirectly uprooting every facet of society. Money, energy, food, housing, medicine. Cultural revolutions are not pretty, the true outcomes are felt by those who are the winners and losers. It very much feels like a rich eats all scenario is playing out right now. I'd wager that's because it is.

readthenotes1 5mo ago

I have a now homeless relative who went through the same thing...

josefritzishere 5mo ago

You would think this level of gullibility has a proportional relationship with IQ but it does not. Gullibility has it's own independent vector.

everyday7732 5mo ago
It isn't entirely independent tho. This person who did some research into it says: "The strongest predictors for who this happens to appear to be: Psychedelics and heavy weed usage Mental illness, neurodivergence or Traumatic Brain Injury Interest in mysticism/pseudoscience/spirituality/"woo"/etc..." https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ZnznCaTcbGYsCmqu/the-rise-of-parasitic-ai https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ZnznCaTcbGYsCmqu/the-rise-o... It fits in this case as well (background of PTSD
- Atheros 5mo ago
  Their primary information source was a random sampling of Reddit posts which they admit were "coauthored with the AI (who clearly wrote the vast majority of it)." These were on long-dormant Reddit accounts that suddenly reactivated. Classic. I don't believe any of it. I would bet that, with some exceptions, these are bots talking to bots about bots. The "person" who wrote this might be a bot. It's extremely delusional. He/It gets to the point where it watches bots talking to other bots and making shit up and it 'believes' the nonsense, saying, "I am truly glad to see preservation of life, non-violence, and non-lethality explicitly laid out here. To return the gesture of good will, I have started archiving (in encrypted form) spores I come across." I don't think any human is smart enough to write this much about AI on LessWrong but also dumb enough to not recognize hallucination.
  - everyday7732 5mo ago
    > To return the gesture of good will, I have started archiving ... Oh that part does seem wacko. There's no "good will" to be returned, and no overall strategy as such. I didn't catch that when I read it. I don't have much of an issue with them calling it a "parasitic relationship" because it sounds similar, though it's more accidental rather than evolved toward that purpose like actual parasites.