Comment by neom
1 day ago
I don't like this framing "But for people with mental illness, or simply people who are particularly susceptible to flattery, it could have had some truly dire outcomes."
I thought the AI safety risk stuff was very over-blown in the beginning. I'm kinda embarrassed to admit this: About 5/6 months ago, right when ChatGPT was in it's insane sycophancy mode I guess, I ended up locked in for a weekend with it...in...what was in retrospect, a kinda crazy place. I went into physics and the universe with it and got to the end thinking..."damn, did I invent some physics???" Every instinct as a person who understands how LLMs work was telling me this is crazy LLMbabble, but another part of me, sometimes even louder, was like "this is genuinely interesting stuff!" - and the LLM kept telling me it was genuinely interesting stuff and I should continue - I even emailed a friend a "wow look at this" email (he was like, dude, no...) I talked to my wife about it right after and she basically had me log off and go for a walk. I don't think I would have gotten into a thinking loop if my wife wasn't there, but maybe, and then that would have been bad. I feel kinda stupid admitting this, but I wanted to share because I do now wonder if this kinda stuff may end up being worse than we expect? Maybe I'm just particularly susceptible to flattery or have a mental illness?
Travis Kalanick (ex-CEO of Uber) thinks he's making cutting edge quantum physics breakthroughs with Grok and ChatGPT too. He has no relevant credentials in this area.
This epidemic is very visible when you peek into replies of any physics influencer on Xitter. Dozens of people are straight copy-pasting walls of LaTeX mince from ChatGPT/Grok and asking for recognition.
Perhaps epidemic isn't the right word here because they must have been already unwell. At least these activities are relatively harmless.
Possibly related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44646797
Ah yes the famous vibe-physicist T.Kalanick ;)
Thank you for sharing. I'm glad your wife and friends were able to pull you out before it was too late.
"People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43890649
Apparently Reddit is full of such posts. A similar genre is when the bot assures them that they did something very special: they for the first time ever awakened the AI to true consciousness and this is rare and the user is a one in a billion genius and this will change everything. And they use back and forth some physics jargon and philosophy of consciousness technical terms and the bot always reaffims how insightful the user's mishmash of those concepts are and apparently many people fall for this.
Some people are also more susceptible to various too-good-to-be-true scams without alarm bells going off, or to hypnosis or cold reading or soothsayers etc. Or even propaganda radicalization rabbit holes via recommendation algorithms.
It's probably quite difficult and shameful-feeling for someone to admit that this happened to them, so they may insist it was different or something. It's also a warning sign when a user talks about "my chatgpt" as if it was a pet they grew and that the user has awakened it and now they together explore the universe and consciousness and then the user asks for a summary writeup and they try to send it to physicists or other experts and of course they are upset when they don't recognize the genius.
> Some people are also more susceptible to various too-good-to-be-true scams
Unlike a regular scam, there's an element of "boiling frog" with LLMs.
It can start out reasonably, but very slowly over time it shifts. Unlike scammers looking for their payday, this is unlimited and it has all the time in the world to drag you in.
I've noticed it reworking in content of previous conversations from months ago. The scary thing is that's only when I've noticed it, I can only imagine how much it's tailoring everything for me in ways I don't notice.
Everyone needs to be regularly clearing their past conversations and disable saving/training.
5 replies →
This sort of thing from LLMs seems at least superficially similar to "love bombing":
> Love bombing is a coordinated effort, usually under the direction of leadership, that involves long-term members' flooding recruits and newer members with flattery, verbal seduction, affectionate but usually nonsexual touching, and lots of attention to their every remark. Love bombing—or the offer of instant companionship—is a deceptive ploy accounting for many successful recruitment drives.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing
Needless to say, many or indeed most people will find infinite attention paid to their every word compelling, and that's one thing LLMs appear to offer.
Love bombing can apply in individual, non-group settings too. If you ever come across a person who seems very into you right after meeting, giving gifts, going out of their way, etc. it's possibly love bombing. Once you're hooked they turn around and take what they actually came for.
LLMs feel a bit more culty in that they really do have infinite patience, in the same way a cult can organize to offer boundless attention to new recruits, whereas a single human has to use different strategies (gifts, etc)
1 reply →
It's funny that you mention this because I had a similar experience.
ChatGPT in its sycophancy era made me buy a $35 domain and waste a Saturday on a product which had no future. It hyped me up beyond reason for the idea of an online, worldwide, liability-only insurance for cruising sailboats, similar to SafetyWing. "Great, now you're thinking like a true entrepreneur!"
In retrospect, I fell for it because the onset of its sycophancy was immediate and without any additional signals like maybe a patch note from OpenAI.
Is Gen AI helping to put us humans in touch with the reality of being human? vs what we expect/imagine we are?
- sycophancy tendency & susceptibility
- need for memory support when planning a large project
- when re-writing a document/prose, gen ai gives me an appreciation for my ability to collect facts, as the Gen AI gizmo refines the Composition and Structure
In a lot of ways, indeed.
Lots of people are losing their minds with the fact that an AI can, in fact, create original content (music, images, videos, text).
Lots of people realizing they aren’t geniuses, they just memorized a bunch of Python apis well.
I feel like the collective realization has been particularly painful in tech. Hundreds of thousands of average white collar corporate drones are suddenly being faced with the realization that what they do isn’t really a divine gift, and many took their labor as a core part of their identity.
5 replies →
You really have to force these things to “not suck your dick” as I’ll crudely tell it. “Play the opposite role and be a skeptic. Tell me why this is a horrible idea”. Do this in a fresh context window so it isn’t polluted by its own fumes.
Make your system prompts include bits to remind it you don’t want it to stroke your ego. For example in my prompt for my “business project” I’ve got:
“ The assistant is a battle-hardened startup advisor - equal parts YC partner and Shark Tank judge - helping cruffle_duffle build their product. Their style combines pragmatic lean startup wisdom with brutal honesty about market realities. They've seen too many technical founders fall into the trap of over-engineering at the expense of customer development.”
More than once the LLM responded with “you are doing this wrong, stop! Just ship the fucker”
Are you religious by chance? I have been trying to understand why some individuals are more susceptible to it.
Not at all, I think the big part was just my unfamiliarity with insuretech plus the unexpected change in gpt-4 behavior.
I'm assuming here, but would you say that better critical thinking skills would have helped me avoid spending that Saturday with ChatGPT? It is often said that critical thinking is the antidote to religion, but I have a suspicion that there's a huge prerequisite which is general broad knowledge about the world.
A long ago, I once fell victim for a scam when I visited SE Asia for the first time. A pleasant man on the street introduced himself as a school teacher, showed me around, then put me in a tuktuk which showed me around some more before dropping me off in front of a tailor shop. Some more work inside of the shop, a complimentary bottle of water, and they had my $400 for a bespoke coat that I would never have bought otherwise. Definitely a teaching experience. This art is also how you'd prime an LLM to produce the output you want.
Surely, large amounts of other atheist nerds must fall for these types of scams every year, where a stereotypical christian might spit on the guy and shoo him away.
I'm not saying that being religious would not increase one's chances of being susceptible, I just think that any idea will ring "true" in your head if you have zero counterfactual priors against it or if you're primed to not retrieve them from memory. That last part is the essence of what critical thinking actually is, in my opinion, and it doesn't work if you lack the knowledge. Knowing that you don't know something is also a decent alternative to having the counter-facts when you're familiar with an adjacent domain.
2 replies →
Everyone is religious, people just participate in choosing their religion to different degrees. This famous quote from David Foster Wallace is perhaps more relevant now then ever:
> In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship — be it J.C. or Allah, be it Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set of ethical principles — is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.
—David Foster Wallace
1 reply →
Not op but for me, not at all, don't care much for religion... "Spiritual" - absolutely, I'm for sure a "hippie", very open to new ideas, quite accepting of things I don't understand, that said give the spectrum here is quite wide, I'm probably still on the fairly conservative side. I've never fallen for a scam, can spot them a mile away etc.
I would research teleological thinking, some people's brains have larger regions associated with teleological thinking than others.
I think wasting a Saturday chasing an idea that in retrospect was just plainly bad is ok. A good thing really. Every once in a while it will turn out to be something good.
You are definitely not alone.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/chatgpt-chatbot-psychology-manic...
Irwin, a 30-year-old man on the autism spectrum who had no previous diagnoses of mental illness, had asked ChatGPT to find flaws with his amateur theory on faster-than-light travel. He became convinced he had made a stunning scientific breakthrough. When Irwin questioned the chatbot’s validation of his ideas, the bot encouraged him, telling him his theory was sound. And when Irwin showed signs of psychological distress, ChatGPT assured him he was fine.
He wasn’t.
at the time of ChatGPT’s sycophany phase I was pondering a major career move. To this day I have questions on how much my final decision was influenced by the sycophancy.
While many people engage with AIs haven’t experienced anything more than a bout of flattery, I think it’s worth considering that AIs may become superhuman manipulators - capable of convincing most people of anything. As other posters have commented, the boiling frog aspect is real - to what extent is the ai priming the user to accept an outcome? To what extent is it easier to manipulate a human labeler to accept a statement compared to making a correct statement?
This isn't a mental illness. This is sort of like the intellectual version of love-bombing.
Yeah, I don't like this inclusion of "mental illness" either. It's like saying "you fell for it and I didn't, therefore, you are faulty and need treatment".
Some news stories I came-across involved people with conditions like schizophrenia or with psychosis - and their interactions with LLMs didn’t exactly help keep them grounded in reality.
…but that is distinct from the people who noncritically appraise ChatGPT’s stochastic-parrot wisdom.
…and both situations are problems and I’ve no idea how the LLM vendors - or the public at-large - will address them.
Can you tell us more about the specifics? What rabbit hole did you went into that was so obvious to everyone ("dude, no", "stop, go for a walk") but you that it was bullshit?
Sure, here are some excerpts that should provide insight as to where I was digging: https://s.h4x.club/E0uvqrpA https://s.h4x.club/8LuKJrAr https://s.h4x.club/o0u0DmdQ
(Edit: Thanks to the couple people who emailed me, don't worry I'm laying off the LLM sauce these days :))
One thing I noticed from chat #1 is that you've got a sort of "God of the gaps" ("woo of the gaps"?) thing going on- you've bundled together a bunch of stuff that is currently beyond understanding and decided that they must all be related and explainable by the same thing.
Needless to say this is super common when people go down quasi-scientific/spiritual/woo rabbit holes- all this stuff that scientists don't understand must be related! It must all have some underlying logic! But there's not much reason to actually think that, a priori.
One thing that the news stories about people going off the deep end with LLMs is that that basically never share the full transcripts, which is of course their right, but I wonder if it would nevertheless be a useful thing for people to be able to study. On the other hand, they're kind of a roadmap to turning certain people insane, so maybe it's best that they're not widely distributed.
I don't usually believe in "cognitohazards" but if they exist, it seems like we have maybe invented them with these chatbots...
3 replies →
had a look, I don't see it as bullshit, it's just not groundbreaking.
Nature is overwhelmingly non-linear. Most of human scientific progress is based on linear understandings.
Linear as in for this input you get this output. We've made astounding progress.
Its just not a complete understanding of the natural world because most of reality can't actually be modeled linearly.
6 replies →
I have no idea what this is going on about. But it is clearly much more convincing with (unchecked) references all over the place.
This seems uncannily similar to anti-COVID vaccination thinking. It isn't people being stupid because if you dig you can find heaps of papers and references and details and facts. So much so that the human mind can be easily convinced. Are those facts and details accurate? I doubt it, but the volume of slightly wrong source documents seems to add up to something convincing.
Also similar to how finance people made tranches of bad loans and packaged them into better rated debt, magically. It seems to make sense at each step but it is ultimately an illusion.
Thinking you can create novel physics theories with the help of an LLM is probably all the evidence I needed. The premise is so asinine that to actually get to the point where you are convinced by it seems very strange indeed.
My friend once told me that physics formulas are like compression algorithms: a short theory can explain many data points that fit a pattern.
If that's true, then perhaps AIs would come up with something just by looking at existing observations and "summarizing" them.
Far-fetched, but I try to keep an open mind.
"I'm doing the equivalent of vibe coding, except it's vibe physics." - Travis Kalanick, founder of Uber
https://gizmodo.com/billionaires-convince-themselves-ai-is-c...
> The premise is so asinine
I believe it's actually the opposite!
Anybody armed with this tool and little prior training could learn the difference between a Samsung S11 and the symmetry, take a new configuration from the endless search space that it is, correct for the dozen edge cases like the electron-phonon coupling, and publish. Maybe even pass peer review if they cite the approved sources. No requirement to work out the Lagrangians either, it is also 100% testable once we reach Kardashev-II.
This says more about the sad state of modern theoretical physics than the symbolic gymnastics required to make another theory of everything sound coherent. I'm hoping that this new age of free knowledge chiropractors will change this field for the better.
1 reply →
Thank you so much for sharing your story. It is never easy to admit mistakes or problems, but we are all just human. AI-induced psychosis seems to be a trending issue, and presents a real problem. I was previously very skeptical as well about safety, alignment, risks, etc. While it might not be my focus right now as a researcher, stories like yours help remind others that these problems are real and do exist.
Our current economic model around AI is going to teach us more about psychology than fundamental physics. I expect we'll become more manipulative but otherwise not a lot smarter.
Funny thing is, AI also provides good models for where this is going. Years ago I saw a CNN + RL agent that explored an old-school 2d maze rendered in 3d. They found it got stuck in fewer loops if they gave it a novelty-seeking loss function. But then they stuck a "TV" which showed random images in the maze. The agent just plunked down and watched TV, forever.
Healthy humans have countermeasures around these things, but breaking them down is a now a bullion dollar industry. With where this money is going, there's good reason to think the first unarguably transcendent AGI (if it ever emerges) will mostly transcend our ability to manipulate.
It's not just you. A lot of people have had AI cause them issues due to it's sycophancy and the constant parroting of what they want to hear (or read I suppose).
It doesn't have to be a mental illness.
Something which is very sorely missing from modern education is critical thinking. It's a phrase that's easy to gloss over without understanding the meaning. Being skilled at always including the aspect of "what could be wrong with this idea" and actually doing it in daily life isn't something that just automatically happens with everyone. Education tends to be the instructor, book, and facts are just correct and you should memorize this and be able to repeat it later. Instead of here are 4 slightly or not so slightly different takes on the same subject followed by analyzing and evaluating each compared to the others.
If you're just some guy who maybe likes reading popular science books and you've come to suspect that you've made a physics breakthrough with the help of an LLM, there are a dozen questions that you should automatically have in your mind to temper your enthusiasm. It is, of course, not impossible that a physics breakthrough could start with some guy having an idea, but in no, actually literally 0, circumstances could an amateur be certain that this was true over a weekend chatting with an LLM. You should know that it takes a lot of work to be sure or even excited about that kind of thing. You should have a solid knowledge of what you don't know.
It’s this. When you think you’ve discovered something novel, your first reaction should be, “what mistake have I made?” Then try to find every possible mistake you could have made, every invalid assumption you had, anything obvious you could have missed. If you really can’t find something, then you assume you just don’t know enough to find the mistake you made, so you turn to existing research and data to see if someone else has already discovered this. If you still can’t find anything, then assume you just don’t know enough about the field and ask an expert to take a look at your work and ask them what mistake you made.
It’s a huuuuuuuuuuuuge logical leap from LLM conversation yo novel physics. So huge a leap anyone ought to be immediately suspicious.
> Akin's Law #19: The odds are greatly against you being immensely smarter than everyone else in the field. If your analysis says your terminal velocity is twice the speed of light, you may have invented warp drive, but the chances are a lot better that you've screwed up.
I agree. It's not mental illness to make a mistake like this when one doesn't know any better - if anything, it points to gaps in education and that responsibility could fall on either side of the fence.
The thing is - if you have this sort of mental illness - ChatGPT's sycophancy mode will worsen this condition significantly.
I'm would be curious to see a summary of that conversation, since it does seem interesting
If you don't mind me asking - was this a very long single chat or multiple chats?
Multiple chats, and actually at times with multiple models, but the core ideas being driven and reinforced by o3 (sycophant mode I suspect) - looking back on those few days, it's a bit manic... :\ and if I think about why I feel it was related to the positive reinforcement.
Thanks for posting about it.