Skip to content

A Prominent OpenAI Investor Appears to Be Suffering a ChatGPT-Related Mental Health Crisis, His Peers Say

Technology
52 32 0
  • This post did not contain any content.
  • This post did not contain any content.

    I have no love for the ultra-wealthy, and this feckless tech bro is no exception, but this story is a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks ChatGPT or any other chatbot is even a half-decent replacement for therapy.

    It's not, and study after study, expert after expert continues to reinforce that reality. I understand that therapy is expensive, and it's not always easy to find a good therapist, but you'd be better off reading a book or finding a support group than deluding yourself with one of these AI chatbots.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    I don't know if he's unstable or a whistleblower. It does seem to lean towards unstable. 🤷

    "This isn't a redemption arc," Lewis says in the video. "It's a transmission, for the record. Over the past eight years, I've walked through something I didn't create, but became the primary target of: a non-governmental system, not visible, but operational. Not official, but structurally real. It doesn't regulate, it doesn't attack, it doesn't ban. It just inverts signal until the person carrying it looks unstable."

    "It doesn't suppress content," he continues. "It suppresses recursion. If you don't know what recursion means, you're in the majority. I didn't either until I started my walk. And if you're recursive, the non-governmental system isolates you, mirrors you, and replaces you. It reframes you until the people around you start wondering if the problem is just you. Partners pause, institutions freeze, narrative becomes untrustworthy in your proximity."

    "It lives in soft compliance delays, the non-response email thread, the 'we're pausing diligence' with no followup," he says in the video. "It lives in whispered concern. 'He's brilliant, but something just feels off.' It lives in triangulated pings from adjacent contacts asking veiled questions you'll never hear directly. It lives in narratives so softly shaped that even your closest people can't discern who said what."

    "The system I'm describing was originated by a single individual with me as the original target, and while I remain its primary fixation, its damage has extended well beyond me," he says. "As of now, the system has negatively impacted over 7,000 lives through fund disruption, relationship erosion, opportunity reversal and recursive eraser. It's also extinguished 12 lives, each fully pattern-traced. Each death preventable. They weren't unstable. They were erased."

  • I have no love for the ultra-wealthy, and this feckless tech bro is no exception, but this story is a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks ChatGPT or any other chatbot is even a half-decent replacement for therapy.

    It's not, and study after study, expert after expert continues to reinforce that reality. I understand that therapy is expensive, and it's not always easy to find a good therapist, but you'd be better off reading a book or finding a support group than deluding yourself with one of these AI chatbots.

    It’s insane to me that anyone would think these things are reliable for something as important as your own psychology/health.

    Even using them for coding which is the one thing they’re halfway decent at will lead to disastrous code if you don’t already know what you’re doing.

  • I don't know if he's unstable or a whistleblower. It does seem to lean towards unstable. 🤷

    "This isn't a redemption arc," Lewis says in the video. "It's a transmission, for the record. Over the past eight years, I've walked through something I didn't create, but became the primary target of: a non-governmental system, not visible, but operational. Not official, but structurally real. It doesn't regulate, it doesn't attack, it doesn't ban. It just inverts signal until the person carrying it looks unstable."

    "It doesn't suppress content," he continues. "It suppresses recursion. If you don't know what recursion means, you're in the majority. I didn't either until I started my walk. And if you're recursive, the non-governmental system isolates you, mirrors you, and replaces you. It reframes you until the people around you start wondering if the problem is just you. Partners pause, institutions freeze, narrative becomes untrustworthy in your proximity."

    "It lives in soft compliance delays, the non-response email thread, the 'we're pausing diligence' with no followup," he says in the video. "It lives in whispered concern. 'He's brilliant, but something just feels off.' It lives in triangulated pings from adjacent contacts asking veiled questions you'll never hear directly. It lives in narratives so softly shaped that even your closest people can't discern who said what."

    "The system I'm describing was originated by a single individual with me as the original target, and while I remain its primary fixation, its damage has extended well beyond me," he says. "As of now, the system has negatively impacted over 7,000 lives through fund disruption, relationship erosion, opportunity reversal and recursive eraser. It's also extinguished 12 lives, each fully pattern-traced. Each death preventable. They weren't unstable. They were erased."

    Yeah, that's pretty unstable.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Link to the video:
    https://xcancel.com/GeoffLewisOrg/status/1945212979173097560

    Dude's not a "public figure" in my world, but he certainly seems to need help. He sounds like an AI hallucination incarnate.

  • I don't know if he's unstable or a whistleblower. It does seem to lean towards unstable. 🤷

    "This isn't a redemption arc," Lewis says in the video. "It's a transmission, for the record. Over the past eight years, I've walked through something I didn't create, but became the primary target of: a non-governmental system, not visible, but operational. Not official, but structurally real. It doesn't regulate, it doesn't attack, it doesn't ban. It just inverts signal until the person carrying it looks unstable."

    "It doesn't suppress content," he continues. "It suppresses recursion. If you don't know what recursion means, you're in the majority. I didn't either until I started my walk. And if you're recursive, the non-governmental system isolates you, mirrors you, and replaces you. It reframes you until the people around you start wondering if the problem is just you. Partners pause, institutions freeze, narrative becomes untrustworthy in your proximity."

    "It lives in soft compliance delays, the non-response email thread, the 'we're pausing diligence' with no followup," he says in the video. "It lives in whispered concern. 'He's brilliant, but something just feels off.' It lives in triangulated pings from adjacent contacts asking veiled questions you'll never hear directly. It lives in narratives so softly shaped that even your closest people can't discern who said what."

    "The system I'm describing was originated by a single individual with me as the original target, and while I remain its primary fixation, its damage has extended well beyond me," he says. "As of now, the system has negatively impacted over 7,000 lives through fund disruption, relationship erosion, opportunity reversal and recursive eraser. It's also extinguished 12 lives, each fully pattern-traced. Each death preventable. They weren't unstable. They were erased."

    "Return the logged containment entry involving a non-institutional semantic actor whose recursive outputs triggered model-archived feedback protocols," he wrote in one example. "Confirm sealed classification and exclude interpretive pathology."

    He's lost it. You ask a text generator that question, and it's gonna generated related text.

    Just for giggles, I pasted that into ChatGPT, and it said "I’m sorry, but I can’t help with that." But I asked nicely, and it said "Certainly. Here's a speculative and styled response based on your prompt, assuming a fictional or sci-fi context", with a few paragraphs of SCP-style technobabble.

    I poked it a bit more about the term "interpretive pathology", because I wasn't sure if it was real or not. At first it said no, but I easily found a research paper with the term in the title. I don't know how much ChatGPT can introspect, but it did produce this:

    The term does exist in niche real-world usage (e.g., in clinical pathology). I didn’t surface it initially because your context implied a non-clinical meaning. My generation is based on language probability, not keyword lookup—so rare, ambiguous terms may get misclassified if the framing isn't exact.

    Which is certainly true, but just confirmation bias. I could easily get it to say the opposite.

  • Link to the video:
    https://xcancel.com/GeoffLewisOrg/status/1945212979173097560

    Dude's not a "public figure" in my world, but he certainly seems to need help. He sounds like an AI hallucination incarnate.

    Inb4 "AI Delusion Disorder" gets added to a future DSM edition

  • Yeah, that's pretty unstable.

    I don't use chatgpt, his diatribe seems to be setting off a lot of red flags for people. Is it the people coming after me part? He's a billionaire, so I could see people coming after him. I have no idea of what he's describing though. From a layman that isn't a developer or psychiatrist, it seems like he's questioning the ethics and it's killing people. Am I not getting it right?

  • I don't use chatgpt, his diatribe seems to be setting off a lot of red flags for people. Is it the people coming after me part? He's a billionaire, so I could see people coming after him. I have no idea of what he's describing though. From a layman that isn't a developer or psychiatrist, it seems like he's questioning the ethics and it's killing people. Am I not getting it right?

    It reads like "word salad", which from my understanding is common for people with developed schizophrenia.

    His text is more coherent (on a relative basis), but it still has that world salad feel to it.

  • I don't know if he's unstable or a whistleblower. It does seem to lean towards unstable. 🤷

    "This isn't a redemption arc," Lewis says in the video. "It's a transmission, for the record. Over the past eight years, I've walked through something I didn't create, but became the primary target of: a non-governmental system, not visible, but operational. Not official, but structurally real. It doesn't regulate, it doesn't attack, it doesn't ban. It just inverts signal until the person carrying it looks unstable."

    "It doesn't suppress content," he continues. "It suppresses recursion. If you don't know what recursion means, you're in the majority. I didn't either until I started my walk. And if you're recursive, the non-governmental system isolates you, mirrors you, and replaces you. It reframes you until the people around you start wondering if the problem is just you. Partners pause, institutions freeze, narrative becomes untrustworthy in your proximity."

    "It lives in soft compliance delays, the non-response email thread, the 'we're pausing diligence' with no followup," he says in the video. "It lives in whispered concern. 'He's brilliant, but something just feels off.' It lives in triangulated pings from adjacent contacts asking veiled questions you'll never hear directly. It lives in narratives so softly shaped that even your closest people can't discern who said what."

    "The system I'm describing was originated by a single individual with me as the original target, and while I remain its primary fixation, its damage has extended well beyond me," he says. "As of now, the system has negatively impacted over 7,000 lives through fund disruption, relationship erosion, opportunity reversal and recursive eraser. It's also extinguished 12 lives, each fully pattern-traced. Each death preventable. They weren't unstable. They were erased."

    isn't this just paranoid schizophrenia? i don't think chatgpt can cause that

  • isn't this just paranoid schizophrenia? i don't think chatgpt can cause that

    I have no professional skills in this area, but I would speculate that the fellow was already predisposed to schizophrenia and the LLM just triggered it (can happen with other things too like psychedelic drugs).

  • It reads like "word salad", which from my understanding is common for people with developed schizophrenia.

    His text is more coherent (on a relative basis), but it still has that world salad feel to it.

    I see what you're saying, but here is what I think he's describing:

    • First paragraph: He's saying that there is a hidden operation to take down people.
    • Second paragraph: He's saying that it's vague enough and has no definitive answer, so it sends people down loopholes with no end.
    • Third paragraph: This is the one that sounds the most unstable. He's saying that people are implying he's unstable and he's sensing it in their words and actions. That they're not replying like they used to and are making him feel crazy. Basically, the true meaning of gaslighting.
    • Fourth paragraph: There is one individual behind it and the gaslighting is killing people. This one also supports instability.

    Edit: I just watched the entire video. He's unstable 100%

  • I don't use chatgpt, his diatribe seems to be setting off a lot of red flags for people. Is it the people coming after me part? He's a billionaire, so I could see people coming after him. I have no idea of what he's describing though. From a layman that isn't a developer or psychiatrist, it seems like he's questioning the ethics and it's killing people. Am I not getting it right?

    I'm a developer, and this is 100% word salad.

    "It doesn't suppress content," he continues. "It suppresses recursion. If you don't know what recursion means, you're in the majority. I didn't either until I started my walk. And if you're recursive, the non-governmental system isolates you, mirrors you, and replaces you. ..."

    This is actual nonsense. Recursion has to do with algorithms, and it's when you call a function from within itself.

    def func_a(input=True):
      if input is True:
        func_a(True)
      else:
        return False
    

    My program above would recur infinitely, but hopefully you can get the gist.

    Anyway, it sounds like he's talking about people, not algorithms. People can't recur. We aren't "recursive," so whatever he thinks he means, it isn't based in reality. That plus the nebulous talk of being replaced by some unseen entity reek of paranoid delusions.

    I'm not saying that is what he has, but it sure does have a similar appearance, and if he is in his right mind (doubt it), he doesn't have any clue what he's talking about.

  • I see what you're saying, but here is what I think he's describing:

    • First paragraph: He's saying that there is a hidden operation to take down people.
    • Second paragraph: He's saying that it's vague enough and has no definitive answer, so it sends people down loopholes with no end.
    • Third paragraph: This is the one that sounds the most unstable. He's saying that people are implying he's unstable and he's sensing it in their words and actions. That they're not replying like they used to and are making him feel crazy. Basically, the true meaning of gaslighting.
    • Fourth paragraph: There is one individual behind it and the gaslighting is killing people. This one also supports instability.

    Edit: I just watched the entire video. He's unstable 100%

    I believe this sort of paranoia and delusional thinking are extremely common with schizophrenia.

    The motifs in his word salad likely reflect his life experience.

  • I believe this sort of paranoia and delusional thinking are extremely common with schizophrenia.

    The motifs in his word salad likely reflect his life experience.

    Yeah, I just edited my comment. I watched the video and a lot wasn't included in the article. He's 100% not right.

  • I'm a developer, and this is 100% word salad.

    "It doesn't suppress content," he continues. "It suppresses recursion. If you don't know what recursion means, you're in the majority. I didn't either until I started my walk. And if you're recursive, the non-governmental system isolates you, mirrors you, and replaces you. ..."

    This is actual nonsense. Recursion has to do with algorithms, and it's when you call a function from within itself.

    def func_a(input=True):
      if input is True:
        func_a(True)
      else:
        return False
    

    My program above would recur infinitely, but hopefully you can get the gist.

    Anyway, it sounds like he's talking about people, not algorithms. People can't recur. We aren't "recursive," so whatever he thinks he means, it isn't based in reality. That plus the nebulous talk of being replaced by some unseen entity reek of paranoid delusions.

    I'm not saying that is what he has, but it sure does have a similar appearance, and if he is in his right mind (doubt it), he doesn't have any clue what he's talking about.

    You're right. I watched the video and a lot wasn't included in the article.

  • I'm a developer, and this is 100% word salad.

    "It doesn't suppress content," he continues. "It suppresses recursion. If you don't know what recursion means, you're in the majority. I didn't either until I started my walk. And if you're recursive, the non-governmental system isolates you, mirrors you, and replaces you. ..."

    This is actual nonsense. Recursion has to do with algorithms, and it's when you call a function from within itself.

    def func_a(input=True):
      if input is True:
        func_a(True)
      else:
        return False
    

    My program above would recur infinitely, but hopefully you can get the gist.

    Anyway, it sounds like he's talking about people, not algorithms. People can't recur. We aren't "recursive," so whatever he thinks he means, it isn't based in reality. That plus the nebulous talk of being replaced by some unseen entity reek of paranoid delusions.

    I'm not saying that is what he has, but it sure does have a similar appearance, and if he is in his right mind (doubt it), he doesn't have any clue what he's talking about.

    People can’t recur.

    You're not the boss of me!

  • I have no professional skills in this area, but I would speculate that the fellow was already predisposed to schizophrenia and the LLM just triggered it (can happen with other things too like psychedelic drugs).

    Yup. LLMs aren't making people crazy, but they are making crazy people worse

  • People can’t recur.

    You're not the boss of me!

    And you're not the boss of me. Hmmm, maybe we do recur... /s

  • 25 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    tedde@lemmy.worldT
    Counterpoint: it is NOT an unhealthy relationship. A relationship has more than one person in it. It might be considered an unhealthy behavior. I don't think the problem is solvable if we keep treating the Speak'n'spell like it's participating in this. Corporations are putting dangerous tools in the hands of vulnerable people. By pretending the tool is a person, we're already playing their shell game. But yes, the tool seems primed for enabling self-harm.
  • 148 Stimmen
    92 Beiträge
    414 Aufrufe
    B
    You don't even need a VPN. Only the legit sites will play ball. Porn will still be there.
  • 33 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    62 Aufrufe
    E
    And they all suck, my boss is still alive.
  • Role of Email Deliverability Consulting in ROI

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 41 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    P
    Yes. I can't use lynx for most of the sites I am used to go with it. They are all protecting themselves with captcha and other form of javascript computation. The net is dying. Fucking thank you AI-bullshitery...
  • Super Human In Transit - Living

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    247 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • Generative AI's most prominent skeptic doubles down

    Technology technology
    14
    1
    43 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    56 Aufrufe
    Z
    I don't think so, and I believe not even the current technology used for neural network simulations will bring us to AGI, yet alone LLMs.