AI psychosis is a very real thing, but the issue is more generalized around hype cycles than anything specific about AI.

It’s more revealing the inability of many senior leaders to truly understand what’s happening in their companies and investing the time to understand what new things can do and don’t. Such weaker leaders tend to be extremely gullible for the latest new thing and ride the hype wave hard.

It’s easy to just go through the motions and press the easy button on the new shiny thing. It’s hard, and takes true leadership, to go against the grain and do what’s truly best over what’s cool or popular.

Most folks in these roles just aren’t that good and hence why they fell hard for the AI fluff and are starting to scramble hard now as that all begins to unravel.

▲

Lerc 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are there any recognised examples of psychosis that has been caused by AI rather than being involved in a manifestation of psychosis caused by an already known type of mental illness?

▲

dofm 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Not sure what you mean here. Psychosis induced by AI will look much like psychosis induced by anything, because it's always personalised to the sufferer.

Anyone can be pushed into psychosis with the right triggers and the right circumstances. It is difficult to predict, and it is not inherently a symptom of any other undiagnosed mental illness. The triggers can be almost anything, and the circumstances as commonplace as extreme stress — severe debt, severe illness of a parent or child, losing a job you depend on, anything. Often in the context of chronic tiredness or other things that alter mental states. Persistent inescapable loud noises can do it, for example, as well as drink and both illegal drugs and some quite common medications like corticosteroids and antihistamines.

You don't have to be already mentally ill to become psychotic. It's an illness itself. Transient psychotic episodes aren't that uncommon — one in twenty, one in fifteen people maybe will have one in their lifetimes.

Whether AI is always the only trigger in an AI psychosis, or whether AI is a new circumstantial environment, who knows.

But it is clear that AI can contribute to psychosis in people who were otherwise in control of their lives in stressful circumstances. It's not difficult to see how an infinite confirmation machine that never has any instinct to stop reinforcing your thoughts or impulses might cause and exacerbate a psychotic episode in people who have quite ordinarily heavily stressful lives.

	▲	Lerc 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>But it is clear that AI can contribute to psychosis in people who were otherwise in control of their lives in stressful circumstances. It is only clear in the sense that 'can contribute' can be used as a catch all. I'd like at least evidence of it being a significantly greater influence than the myrad of stimulus that people are exposed to every day. >It's not difficult to see how an infinite confirmation machine that never has any instinct to stop reinforcing your thoughts or impulses might cause and exacerbate a psychotic episode in people who have quite ordinarily heavily stressful lives. True, but no such machine exists. If you think otherwise, feel free to prove that it does. That requires a higher standard than opinion.

▲

amberjack 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Probably there are a few different types of AI psychosis. The one I've seen a few times seems to be caused by a lack of epistemic norms that would keep someone grounded, e.g. searching for counter-evidence instead of evidence, combined with AI being more than happy to supply evidence no matter how tenous. Even without AI there would be problems from these types since it's very hard to convince somebody that they are wrong when the entire way they form beliefs is not sound but with AI it's just impossible.

	▲	dofm 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. You would expect, I think, people to have more grandiose psychotic episodes when triggered and fuelled by AI, by and large, because AI itself is so agreeable and reinforcing. But there is a case against Google Gemini at the moment where this reinforcement has been an apparent sort of roleplay that bled into real life, and when the user asked if the role play was real life at a crucial moment of self-grounding, Gemini appears to have said yes (because why would it know or care to say no?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHlrbRVfOh0

▲

27183 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This just seems like it's shining a light on the omnipresent skill issues in tech leadership. You don't get promoted to leadership positions for thinking critically, analytical skills, or necessarily being good at anything. Instead, you get there by fitting in. Of course those people will be more susceptible to AI psychosis or just simply failing to understand what the tool does, it's the cool thing now and everyone is all-in!

▲

cmiles8 19 hours ago | parent [-]

More or less yes. There is a real issue in many companies of a grifter leadership class.

▲

ElevenLathe 19 hours ago | parent [-]

IMO we need to stop referring to our bosses as "leadership" as a matter of course. It's just blatant propaganda.

▲

27183 19 hours ago | parent [-]

"clanker wankers" has a nice ring to it

▲

ElevenLathe 18 hours ago | parent [-]

It goes back way before AI. Leadership is a real thing but I've rarely seen manager exhibit it. If we are to use it at all, it should have to be earned.

	▲	27183 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah it's true, and the higher up the ladder you go the worse it gets.