What is love? Like, to you

As a demi-romantic: I have felt love for someone that wasn’t romantic nor platonic

Took me a long time tho

Lol

Am I?

Cuz the way it looks to me we’re both simply trying to discuss something different.

Where the point I’m trying to get across is: “If you lay the blame solely on the people getting psychosis then you’re actively covering up the harm AI can do” With this in mind: when I read your comments your point is interpreted as: “Psychosis is something that’s guaranteed to happen because you’re born with it, AI doesn’t influence it”

Whereas the point you’re trying to make is probably more in line with “AI didn’t suddenly make CEO’s greedier, they already were and blaming AI for that rather than capitalism, is bad”

The problem then lies within the expectation of how discussions on the internet go. By going into the “I need to win” mindset which the internet comments are famous for. Its easy to fall into the mindset of being opponents rather than 2 people trying to convey what they think is important. I believe we both entered this mindset somewhere through the argument.

Look, I can’t know what you find important because you’ve ignored my questions and instead opted to attack my (sometimes shaky) arguments instead. Which is fair but this doesn’t help in opening the conversation to new perspectives. It more or less turns it into a debate instead.

This time however its clear you’ve given up on trying to communicate your point. Which is a shame because I was trying to understand it. I even think I’ll be able to if you give me context to your thought process similarly as to how I just tried.

“AI might feed their disease, but it was already there, and it didn’t hallucinate them into psychosis - they have always been right on the edge.”

Is a contradiction. Being on the edge of psychosis is not the same as being in one. Within this part you both claim that AI doesn’t hallucinate them into psychosis because they were already on the edge.

So your argument is “AI doesn’t hallucinate people into psychosis it just feeds into it and pushes them over the edge”

Which is exactly what hallucinating someone into psychosis means.

Why are you defending AI?

What is darvo?

Edit: reading the article it seems my way of thinking was indeed a bit simple minded

Still I would like to argue the point that AI doesn’t reveal psychosis, it develops it.

Did AI remove the limiter? Or is it actively pushing people towards delusion by agreeing with whats being said and validating the persons delusionary thoughts as how reality works?

Or they’re lying for money rather than suffering from a mental condition.

You’re making the assumption that all “bosses” mentioned in the article are people seeking infinite growth.

You’re making an assumption about a group of people you know nothing about and trying to link them with people suffering from psychosis. Essentially grouping “people suffering from psychosis” together with “greedy CEO’s”. Whereas greedy CEO’s could also simply be narcissistic, evil or simply lying to others to get more money.

By grouping them with psychosis sufferers you’re denying the sufferers their lived experience in favor of assumptions.

No.

I’m mad about the misrepresentation of psychosis

Idunno man, sounds like you’re trying to shift the blame from AI inducing psychosis in people towards the people affected by it

(https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12712562/)

Respectfully: no.

Psychosis is something that builds over time with many factors and AI is one that can definitely be one of the contributing factors. It can be the one that pushes someone over the edge into psychosis and that may seem as “revealing” it but the psychosis could have been avoided without.

This line of thinking feels dangerous to me.