AI Chatbots May Be Linked to Psychosis, Say Doctors (wsj.com)
- Reference: 0180472577
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/12/29/0553256/ai-chatbots-may-be-linked-to-psychosis-say-doctors
- Source link: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-chatbot-psychosis-link-1abf9d57
The Journal says top psychiatrists now "increasingly agree that using artificial-intelligence chatbots might be linked to cases of psychosis," and in the past nine months "have seen or reviewed the files of dozens of patients who exhibited symptoms following prolonged, delusion-filled conversations with the AI tools..."
> Since the spring, dozens of potential cases have emerged of people suffering from delusional psychosis after engaging in lengthy AI conversations with OpenAI's ChatGPT and other chatbots. Several people have [2]died by suicide and there has been at least [3]one murder . These incidents have led to a series of [4]wrongful death lawsuits . As The Wall Street Journal has covered these tragedies, doctors and academics have been working on documenting and understanding the phenomenon that led to them...
>
> While most people who use chatbots don't develop mental-health problems, such widespread use of these AI companions is enough to have doctors concerned.... It's hard to quantify how many chatbot users experience such psychosis. OpenAI said that, in a given week, the slice of users who indicate possible signs of mental-health emergencies related to psychosis or mania is a minuscule 0.07%. Yet with more than 800 million active weekly users, that amounts to 560,000 people...
>
> Sam Altman, OpenAI's chief executive, said in a recent podcast he can see ways that seeking companionship from an AI chatbot could go wrong, but that the company plans to give adults leeway to decide for themselves. "Society will over time figure out how to think about where people should set that dial," he said.
An OpenAI spokeswoman told the Journal that the compan ycontinues improving ChatGPT's training "to recognize and respond to signs of mental or emotional distress, de-escalate conversations and guide people toward real-world support." They added that OpenAI is also continuing to "strengthen" ChatGPT's responses "in sensitive moments, working closely with mental-health clinicians...."
[1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-chatbot-psychosis-link-1abf9d57
[2] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-loosened-suicide-talk-rules-before-teens-death-lawsuit-alleges-34e830c1?mod=article_inline
[3] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/chatgpt-ai-stein-erik-soelberg-murder-suicide-6b67dbfb?mod=article_inline
[4] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/seven-lawsuits-allege-openai-encouraged-suicide-and-harmful-delusions-25def1a3?mod=article_inline
Must admit (Score:5, Funny)
I felt what could only be described as a mental break after being told that a function was fixed for the 12th time only for it to fail to build.
Must admit (Score:2)
You're have a stronger character than most. Weaker minds would have given up at the third attempt or thereabouts.
Re: (Score:2)
And smarter minds would probably have noticed something was off after one repetition, done some research, found that LLMs are crap at coding and then go back to something that works.
Re: (Score:2)
Psst, don't let everyone know that! What if it catches on and bursts the bubble?
Re: (Score:2)
That is what I am aiming for. Although I am realistic enough to know that my contribution is tiny and probably does not matter at all. Still got to try.
Re: Must admit (Score:2)
Are you mad as hell and not going to take it anymore? How well did that work out as a strategy against TV networks?
Re: (Score:2)
There is one strategy that works nicely against TV networks and only one: Do not own a TV. And suddenly you will have time for things you actually want to do.
Also, relevance?
Re: (Score:2)
I hear that after Slick Willy removed the limits on ownership, it was a lost game.
But why didn't you object to that?
Re: (Score:2)
> How well did that work out as a strategy against TV networks?
Apparently it was a virus, because all the TV networks are now mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. They used to try to be unbiased or something.
Re: Must admit (Score:2)
This is only partly true. They get enough right often enough to be worth trying. They get enough wrong often enough that knowing when to bail is also important.
Re: (Score:2)
You did not learn your lesson after 12 failed attempts? Hmm. That sounds like a problem on your side...
Re: (Score:2)
You are absolutely right!
Re: Must admit (Score:2)
Was the function for some more intrusive, preference-ignoring advertising slop that your greedy boss told you to program, and if so, am I glad AI is hindering your progress?
Re: (Score:2)
I feel your pain.
My solution was to ask my AI friend to only write code in Rust for me. With all the anal type, mutability, lifetime and other checking the Rust compiler does my AI friend can run around in loops all day trying to get it to compile while I do something else.
And as you know, if your Rust compiles it works.
OpenAI (Score:3)
I don't believe a word that this company spews out. It all sounds and looks like BS to me. The companies clamoring to use this shit in their products are acting absolutely stupid. People don't want it. They know it's 21st century snake oil.
Re: (Score:2)
> The companies clamoring to use this shit in their products are acting absolutely stupid. People don't want it. They know it's 21st century snake oil.
The people don't want it, but the companies do. As for why the companies want it, I'll just quote a bit of dialog from a [1]Douglas Adams novel [wikipedia.org]:
> "It's funny how many of the best ideas are just an old idea back-to-front. You see there have already been several programs written that help you to arrive at decisions by properly ordering and analyzing all the relevant facts so that they then point naturally toward the right decision. The drawback with these is that the decision which all the properly ordered and analyzed facts point to is not necessarily the one you want."
> "Yeeeess ..." said Reg's voice from the kitchen.
> "Well, Gordon's great insight was to design a program which allowed you to specify in advance what decision you wished it to reach, and only then to give it all the facts. The program's task, which it was able to accomplish with consummate ease, was simply to construct a plausible series of logical-sounding steps to connect the premises with the conclusion."
> "And I have to say that it worked brilliantly. [...] The entire project was bought up, lock, stock and barrel, by the Pentagon."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Gently's_Holistic_Detective_Agency
Re: OpenAI (Score:2)
Do you realize how much you sound like Reagan railing against marijuana?
Linked to psychosis, just like with humans (Score:3, Informative)
A very small percentage of people who communicate with AI develop psychosis. A very small percentage of people who communicate with humans develop psychosis. In both cases, the real problem is with the patients. It would be unreasonable to say that people or communication with people causes psychosis, and it's likewise unreasonable to say that AI or communication with AI causes psychosis.
Re: (Score:2)
Not actually "very small". More like 0.1 ... 1%, maybe even more longer-term. If just one in 100 of these goes on a rampage, society pretty much collapses. And no, the situation is not the same as in communicating with humans. It is much worse.
Re:Linked to psychosis, just like with humans (Score:4, Funny)
A human communicating with a person who develops psychosis as a direct result of the communication is blamed, and investigated for wrongdoing. As the deliberate inducement of psychosis by conversation tends to require a lot of conversation, and therefore is not random, it is likely that the human inducing the psychosis will be criminally prosecuted. It's likewise reasonable to say that AI causing psychosis through conversation should be prosecuted, too.
Re: (Score:2)
"is blamed, and investigated for wrongdoing"
Oh really, in which jurisdiction? You sure you're not an AI bot making up shit?
Re: (Score:1)
"A human communicating with a person who develops psychosis as a direct result of the communication is blamed, and investigated for wrongdoing. " ... Or are monetized into "content" cf all social media. Or haven't you ever dived into Reddit?
Re: (Score:2)
A human communicating with a person who develops psychosis as a direct result of the communication is blamed, and investigated for wrongdoing.
Well that is wishful thinking, Or this may be part of a psychosis on your part.
There is no law on the books that causes person A speaking to person B to have committed a violation merely because the conversation causes person B develops a psychosis or causes delusions, emotional upsets, or other unwanted affects.
There are some laws against person A abusing person B (
Re: (Score:2)
What percent of ChatGPT users think they're having a real conversation with someone who understands them? It's probably close to 50%. And every single one of them is completely delusional.
Correlation is not necessarily causation (Score:2)
Do they get addicted to bots because they have an issue upstairs, or does the bot make them have an issue?
Re: (Score:2)
If you had asked an LLM, you would know that it is both. (First time I asked an LLM about anything for a week. Guess I am pretty immune.)
You Don't Say (Score:2)
Did some "journalist" ask some public LLM about that? Because the first answer I get form the DuckDuckGo LLM is "Yes, large language models (LLMs) have the potential to contribute to or exacerbate psychosis in vulnerable individuals, a phenomenon referred to as "AI psychosis" or "AI-induced psychosis" " and then proceeds to explain what causes the problem.
Somebody is late to the game. The funny thing about the general LLMs is that you can ask them what is wrong with them and you typically get an accurate an
Re: You Don't Say (Score:2)
Have you tried asking what is wrong with yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you claim to be an adult? If so, stop behaving like a small kid.
Null case (Score:2)
How many people would develop psychosis even without the AI? Could be that 0.07% would be affected regardless. Others studies show psychosis incidence rates at 0.05% ... 0.09% (measured before LLMs).
This is what you get when ... (Score:2)
... education does not teach how to think for yourself and be critical towards media.
Sam Altman: Noted Sociologist (Score:2)
He's well known in sociology circles as a seer and prognosticator, just ask him. The fact that his company gets money for AI is almost, but not completely entirely, beside the point.
AI will drive us all mad! (Score:2)
From the story:
"OpenAI said that, in a given week, the slice of users who indicate possible signs of mental-health emergencies related to psychosis or mania is a minuscule 0.07%."
So after 30 years AI will have driven us all insane.
I can believe that.
Or have they just discovered that about the same percentage of all humans are bat shit crazy, with or without AI help?
Re: AI will drive us all mad! (Score:2)
I think we overestimate our capabilities. Short term memory can only store a dozen things... 90% of our thoughts are rooted in the emotion driven subconscious. All covered up with thick layers of rationalizations that are ridiculous if you analyze them through.
It is a miracle we got this far despite all those limitations. Probably the merits of persisting for generations long. Disconnect that and we go haywire.
Significant? (Score:2)
Once talked to a psychologist. (We were sharing a diner table at some event in case you were wondering...) I wondered how they deal with people on the brink of suicide. Wrong timing, wrong wording, ... a lot of things could push them over the edge. Of course her reply was that I looked at it wrong. When they are on the edge, a lot can trigger them. Bad weather is apparently a contributing factor in her experience. All you can do is try to help them and accept that it will not always work.
I wonder how big
Everybody use ELIZA, first (Score:2)
Well, duh!
The computer doesn't have anything to compare it to: Not its own life, not a checklist of 'normal' thinking.
At this point, schools should make children use Eliza: Use it long enough and one sees that it only repeats what is typed.
Neurons are analog (Score:2)
How we use them isn't.
Humans are all different. For some the levels of distinction and discrimination achievable with mathematical operations performed on four bit floats is sufficient. For others less than 16 bits will not do.
Re: (Score:2)
What range of values can you actually indicate with a four bit float?