The "terror of global catastrophe" is what doomscroller media constantly hammers onto its readers. And once someone has "bought in", it's impossible to reason with them. They'll just forever spread anxiety around them.
What's interesting is how it happens. Take someone who is mentally stable and subject them to a terminally online lifestyle for a year or two. They will have tons of anxiety about all sorts of things, not the least of which will be that the world is doomed (with no hope), that our societies and way of life are in the "late stage" and moments from collapse, and so on.
And it's a bit of a tragedy. If we took only the energy that people spend evangelizing those doom beliefs and put that energy into productive efforts, that alone could probably prevent whatever disaster is being evangelized. But maybe that'd not be good for engagement on social media or something.
Good insight, thanks. I've been struggling with existential dread related to https://ai-2027.com/ - trying to refute the arguments is exhausting, I should probably just ignore it and get on with my life.
Fears about AI misalignment look like a modern, secular Pascal's Wager. It's hedge against a low-probability, infinite-cost outcome. The Rationalist version builds a matrix where one cell is -inf, and from that, derives an imperative to act, regardless of how speculative the premise is.
However, once you admit infinite utilities and epistemic humility about probabilities, you can justify literally anything. The same construction could obligate you to worship simulation overlords, or to develop interstellar missile defense in case of hostile alien AIs. That's not a rational risk model, it's theological reasoning dressed up in Bayesian costume.
This stuff operates on the boundary of plausibility, the intelligent paranoid mind generates scenarios that can't be conclusively ruled out but also can't be grounded in anything falsifiable. That's not where productive engineering lives.
The escape hatch here is the same one we used for Pascal's Wager: you reject the premise. You don't hand the keys of your threat model over to speculative infinities. You work on problems you can see, measure, and influence. You don't respond to every "what if?" with a fire drill. Recognizing that this is a failure mode in human cognition is enough to avoid it.
Yes, there are real risks with AI: bias, misuse, surveillance capitalism, economic displacement. These are all tractable, all human-driven. But the misalignment discourse? It's less a bet against an existential outcome and more a projection of philosophical anxieties onto a technical domain. And once you frame it that way, it's clear: this isn't engineering. Folks doing this are playing metaphysics in front of a terminal emulator.
AGI does sound a lot like a "psychological crutch" when it is pointed at as the answer for wicked problems like climate change. With faith in AGI, nothing else really matters because we can eventually surrender ourselves to the superior direction and interventions of this god we have created. There's no point worrying about anything else.
Human technology has evolved significantly in the last few thousand years but we are all the same religious fruitcakes we've always been, whether or not we can see it.
The comparison to Pascal's Wager is apt - I came to the same conclusion when I first read about Roko's Basilisk, but the insight somehow slipped from my mind. It's like an epistemic tarpit attractor.
Actually that one is probably real, and you should probably try to stop it if you're able.
My approach is a simple one, to use economics to make development of further models a really bad idea at scale https://andrew-quinn.me/ai-bounties - but many other, smarter people have attacked this problem and we're still not totally sure how to stop it.
That's very interesting. It seems to assume AI agents will have the same evolutionary imperative as other species. But without the ecological context, it looks like an unfounded premise. Why would AI play the 4X game, considering the infinity of alternative imperatives it could follow?
You’re having existential dread over pure science fiction written by people who have something to gain from LLM companies becoming profitable?
You have it right. Just ignore the grifters. These companies are burning billions and are realizing they don’t have an exit strategy so they’re becoming desperate.
Existential dread is not unwarranted but you do need to choose the arguments that are most likely to happen, and focus your energies on those rather than be sidetracked by spurious outcomes that may never come to pass.
There are many false narratives meant to distract, and you'll have to discern which ones are true and it can be exhausting if you let it. This is how 5th-Generation-Warfare (5GW) is.
I'll tell you right now, its highly unlikely that AGI will occur, because the properties required for computation make it nigh impossible.
It doesn't need to do this to be an existential threat. All it needs to do is disrupt the economic cycle sufficiently to stall economic activity, and it does so quite easily.
An economic cycle stalling leads to chaotic socio-economic collapse and a loss of order. Current population levels are only made possible by dependencies which have been made brittle over time, relying on continued order for survival just to produce enough food. I'm sure you've heard of the Malthusian Trap, you may not have revisited later works touching on Malthus by Catton in the 90s.
The economic cycle is a circular cycle between workers and producers. We exist today because of an equitable distribution of labor which is compensated.
There is also the issue of money printing, which is too long to discuss here. Needless to say there are two requirements that must be met to continue the cycle sustainably (avoiding chaotic whipsaw and stalling). Producers must make a profit in purchasing power, People must make a profit supporting a wife and three children sufficient so that one makes it to have children themselves, also in purchasing power.
Money printing eventually causes money to lose its store of value (property), and when that happens medium of exchange is lost as well. Stalling of the economy, and same issue.
There are at least 6 other avenues by which this same outcome occurs, and they are in systems we can no longer change, its runaway. Solutions like UBI fail for other equally impossible problems, albeit they are more indirect but still end in chaotic whipsaws, distortions (artificial supply constraint), etc.
AI doesn't need to be AGI. All it needs to do is disrupt and eliminate the majority of entry level positions of the career development pipeline.
Within a 10 year cycle, collapse will become unavoidable as a matter of math. The output of a pipeline depends upon the input of the pipeline, it is always less for all values above 0. 0 in 0 out.
Man ages out of careers and die eventually. No people to mentor, that knowledge dies with them.
What you just described is an idea that's around intellectual circles about the nature of power in this era. It's the idea behind the book "Ipnocrazia" (not yet released), which gained fame around europe and south america.
Citing from the top of my head: "Simulation isn't imitating the real anymore, simulation precedes the real"
If I understand it right, tragedy is first simulated. Once the simulation is bought by the population, it gives the ruling class a reason to act how they really want to act, and the tragedy is made real.
In other words. It's population control without coercion.
A narrative puts people in a trance (they're hypnotized), inhibiting their cognitive capacity. The narrative is the simulation. The goal is to make people fearful and disoriented so they delegate their cognitive capacity to "illuminated" rulers, accepting the simulation as real.
If i were to put it in real terms. Let's spread the narrative of an incoming world war 3. Once it's settled, the population will just accept world war 3 as a matter of fact, unavoidable. This would allow us, the ruler class, to extend trump's presidency even beyond.
That assumes a level of structure and control to society that simply doesn’t exist.
I don’t know why people so often fall into the trap of assuming someone or something is running things, but chaos seems to be anathema to how people perceive the world. God(s), fate, luck, karma, magic etc have been supplanted by the everything from hidden cabals, aliens, etc but I don’t think the underlying psychology is really any different.
I think you are making some assumptions there. All of the things the parent comment mentioned can come about through emergent behaviors. Every actor operating independently yet influenced towards a certain direction via the incentives/disincentives that the system provides them.
Well I don’t think what the OP is describing is a puppet master pulling strings. There are definitely individuals pushing their own agendas to gain control over masses, which obviously has emergent outcomes.
Funny how what the book talks about… is exactly what’s happening. Kind of meta.
The author doesn’t exist. The whole essay is fake—or a “philosophical experiment”[1], according to Andrea Colamedici, the real italian author behind it, who was supposedly just the translator. And those words aren’t his either. They came from two AI platforms (still unnamed).
It’s been a scandal in publishing, and in all the universities and newspapers that praised it as a fresh way to understand the present.
Now, of course, intellectuals and journalists are justifying “the intellectual debate the book sparked”, asking if these new “philosophical entities” are the start of a new wave of “hybrid works...” and so on.
Well. They’ve basically discovered "vibe philosophizing": feeling deep truths without knowing where they come from or why they sound right.
I'm not sure why you say it's a scandal. The author worked with the publishing company from the start, and from the start the intention was to "unveil" the truth to make an impact.
> And those words aren’t his either. They came from two AI platforms (still unnamed).
According to interviews, he used AI platforms in a very specific way that couldn't be called "vibe philosophizing". It seems he treated the AI as a mirror instead of a system that would give him answers. I'm waiting for an extended interview this sunday, but if I understand it right he used AI as a tool for self-reflection and self-questioning.
> I'm not sure why you say it's a scandal. The author worked with the publishing company from the start, and from the start the intention was to "unveil" the truth to make an impact.
That just means he didn’t lie alone. They lied as a group. They lied to the newspapers that interviewed Jianwei Xun, they lied to the bookstores that sold a non-existent author, they lied to readers and academics, they violated the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, which considers it a serious offense to fail to label AI-generated text, video, or audio. The book doesn’t clarify this in any of its editions.[1]
I get your point about the marketing strategy. That doesn’t change the fact that it was a lie.
Several newspapers have already retracted or pulled their original articles about the “clever stunt” by the Italian author. New spanish editions will now include an explanation of the actual writing process (with AI), as well as the mixed identity behind the author's name.[2]
A scandal.
And yes, I think the experiment is interesting. But they lied, not just my opinion. That’s what every newspapers who interviewed a ghost is now saying.
> According to interviews, he used AI platforms in a very specific way that couldn't be called "vibe philosophizing"
I was referring to the intellectuals now justifying the experiment of working with AI. (They’ve basically discovered “vibe philosophizing”) I wasn’t referring to him. He clearly knew what he was doing.
> It seems he treated the AI as a mirror instead of a system that would give him answers.
Right. Except… I’m not the one saying:
- “Jianwei Xun emerged in late 2024 as a distributed philosophical entity born from the collaborative interaction between human intelligence and artificial intelligence systems.”
- “Xun's true nature as a hybrid intellectual construct…”
I've read the interview I mentioned before and he explains how he used the AI and which AIs he used.[1]
It might be a bit confusing. He thinks of the author of the book (the final product of "prompt thinking") as something that's not him and it's not AI either, and that's why he phrased the use of AI like that. Basically, he says he could not have written the book without AI because he would not have thought of the concepts without AI, but he also says AI didn't write the book.
It's true that even if he wrote everything, he used AI to help him think ("prompt thinking"). I imagine that philosophically speaking for him, the book isn't entirely his. In the interview he also talks about how AI manipulates. You can't escape AI manipulation, but you can't be out of the loop. You have to be conscious about the fact that you're being manipulated at all times.
About prompt thinking: it seems to be a technique that uses AI to facilitate thinking in people. It's the reverse of using AI as an oracle.
Hypnocracy would be a societal structure in which democracy and free choice is an illusion. The population's perception of reality would be manufactured by the ruling class without coercion or persuasion.
The Overton Window only makes sense when there's free choice.
I think there is a fundamental difference between such social phenomena and the seemingly solitary delusions that happen in recognized mental illness such as schizophrenia.
The anxiety spreaders are a political phenomena. It's mostly about blaming the "other side" and framing it as the cause for world collapse. Those people don't actually believe a catastrophe is going to happen. They already think they are being productive by hacking the political spectrum. In other words, imbecile automaton panfleteers.
What you described has nothing to do with schizophrenia. You are mixing up two distinct behaviors by a single theme (world ending catastrophes).
so we are completely ignoring the science, now, ey?
someone always has more data. 50 years for you might be a lot but someone else will tell you they are gone faster than you think.
a) doomers are just buffs, superficial or nerdy.
b) never forget that due to how the web and social hierarchies are build, some people have an ugly information flow, are constantly lied to, and bots flood their feeds with the worst shit just because they had a bit of moment, once.
some people are stilled told EV's are shit, buy a diesel. they are told so by some sort of "authority". or: "don't get a credit for "solar" if you don't have half the money right away" ( even though you'd start to save/make money after 10 years but you don't know math and that person is some sort of "authority" )
the world is full of mostly sub-average competence in positions or with the status of some sort of "authority" and these sub-average competent people, some of them saved and domesticated dogs, absolutely need others to have it worse then them so they will feed them lies whenever those people need advice. and these dogs usually work in collectives.
truthy information flow is imperative but even the German state media slaps incomplete or outright misinformation into their audience brains' all the freaking time. it's ugly, especially if you read and watch news from a bunch of international and national sources, which is why the educated youth stopped caring long ago and gladly joins Ponzi narratives ... written and played by people who rely on misinformation, polarization and some sort of ... "show" ... it's boring until the future arrives and there's nothing but obedience and or confusion and or drugs to cope with either or both.
critical thinking is a dying idea, a skill soon extinct. defense mechanisms against it are hard-wired into languages and schools of thought ... the whole "just doin' my job" thing got outta hand because a bunch of other people were sabotaged just doing their jobs ... but someone makes you feel cool, or luxury does ... and that's that.
The tragedy is in the flawed thinking this type of article promotes to the layperson.
A professional has a duty of care to diagnose correctly, delusion by its very definition is a false belief that is believed to be true. The professional may lose their license if they do not diagnose correctly.
The layperson will read this and say, global catastrophe, fear of poisoning, persecution etc, and discount/nullify these entire categories regardless of whether they may be true or false given the circumstances. They choose to ignore it, and worse through nullification compulse others towards that false belief.
Now when it does happen to be true because hey, WW2 happened, and hey Hitler's rise to power followed milestones which Trump has been following, or better yet the collapse of the currency which is a known fact to happen and based in science and history when money-printing gets out of control... these fears are warranted, and should be listened to and inspire action to correct, but these type of articles condition people to discount and nullify such things and by extension ensuring those things happen when the circumstances are true because they have blinded themselves.
That's how evil works in people. It is a self-blinding to the consequences of destructive acts, to the point where those acts are repeated until they are forcefully stopped.
A fear of poisoning may be quite relevant in cases of new technology where we have no frame of reference for adequate safety because its new, like those who are part of the vaccine injured.
I think its quite important for every one today to objectively revisit their sentiment and beliefs, following Descartes Method.
Many of the things believed today by many are quite delusional, and mass delusion does happen in systems where the people have been exposed to torture whether they know it or not.
The delusional don't base their measure in objective external reality.
Robert Lifton, Robert Cialdini, Joost Meerloo, are well established authors who touch on the elements of torture, structure, and clustering.
If you've been significantly downvoted for a personal opinion, technically you've been exposed to torture.
Few in fact realize this though because its indirect, and most people won't follow the indirections back. It takes advantage of a strategy which Nazi's, and Mao used, but also the Stasi perfected, and really everyone uses today in sensitive positions.
The separation of objectionable concerns.
As for why we see this in so many online platforms. Its 5GW, and the platform maintainers are complicit, either through a corruption by dependency scheme, or just improper priorities believing its better to do or provide something than nothing even if they can't solve the problem. There is a financial interest towards this which drives this forward.
Either way, action or inaction is a choice they made. Regardless of initial hope, destructive outcomes (negligence) and intent (choice to act or not) turn this into malice/malevolence. Even if they have isolated themselves so they don't know willfully, they are still accountable for their actions and choices.
The paper doesn't seem to actually define their categories anywhere. Am I just missing it? Or am I meant to intuitively know the difference between "spied on / watched" and "spy / surveillance"?
Edit - upon re-reading, it seems like they're just using the themes present in the underlying literature, with _extremely_ conservative merging. Which makes the headline claim, that there are 37 distinct themes, pretty pointless. Is "spied on" really a distinct theme from "surveillance"? More likely, there's just no standardised name for it.
I took the most obvious cultural displacement industry as an example of the correlation between tropes, personas and delusions. Of course the internet is another one of those.
Whether is it the cause or not, it is impossible to say, at least in the way the paper studies it ("meta-analysis,", another way of saying "loose correlation").
People love it? I don't know. Maybe it's like an addiction instead of a real desire for it. Have you ever been in a culture without those elements to know what is like?
Anyway. Talking seriously now, schizophrenia is a big elephant in the world's room. Lots of correlations, no clear cause. The more you look into it, the more the cause seems to be inexistent.
Given its current symptoms-based definition, with very low effort, anyone could be classified as schizophrenic. Just one push to disrupt "normal everyday functioning behavior" and even the most sane person could end up in the schizo bucket.
The standard DSM-5 delusions are are "bizarre, jealousy, erotomanic, grandiose, control, reference, persecutory, somatic, thought broadcasting, and insertion". Those covers a sizable fraction of Hollywood film plots. That says something important about something.
Has anyone looked at similar studies from, say, five years ago? I worry that half of what was labeled “delusional” back then is now a widely accepted opinion.
Feels like we're one step away from a follow-up paper titled "We regret to inform you: The paranoid were just early."
Not saying everything turns out to be true - just that social consensus tends to shift a lot faster than clinical definitions.
The clinical definition of delusion includes social consensus. From DSM-5:
"Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. […] The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity."
Probably the latter. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a diagnosis in 1973, by a vote of 5,854 to 3,810. Gender identity disorder was removed from the DSM in 2017.
It seems like there is a continuum between being oblivious and delusional. You need to notice things, recognize their meaning, make connections and then make conclusions. Being oblivious can mean missing important signs and making bad choices due to not realizing what is happening. Being delusional can mean jumping to conclusions by "connecting the dots" in one particular way that leads to one conclusion even though that may not be the truth. A sane perspective would mean evaluating different hypotheses to come to a reasonable conclusion. Someone who is paranoid may be right about some things much earlier than others, but they may also be wrong about many other things.
I think in many circumstances certain outcomes emerged because the paranoid willed it into existence. I get the feeling there are a lot doomsayers who secretly want the end of civilization to occur so that they can finally act out their fantasies, delusions, say they were right, etc.
> Delusions — fixed, false beliefs that cannot be changed by evidence — are a key symptom of many psychotic disorders
Interesting that "psychotic disorders" can be replaced with "tribalism" and still be true. We can easily identify such false beliefs in other tribes but often have a blind spot for them in our own.
But in terms of tribes or politics it is not clear that this is a disorder. Believing the same false things as our neighbors is often rewarded with status, wealth and mating opportunities, while failing to do so can be deadly. What converts the same tendency into psychosis can be merely the context: it's psychotic to believe false things when there is no social advantage to it and it therefore becomes unfit. But the same is true of believing true things when they conflict with a tribe's deeply held false beliefs.
Like a propensity to violence, believing false things can be a deadly strategy. Or it can be the only strategy that allows a chance for survival. And you may not know which until it is too late. It would be nice to live in a world where violence and false beliefs are consistently maladaptive, but that isn't this one.
You need to read about psychosis. Meaning, the clinical term, its causes, experience, and treatment. You’re conflating it with a critique you seem to have of people’s behavior. If you knew more I don’t think you’d do that.
In the medical definition, "fixed" is an important aspect of it. Maybe you have interacted with people with diagnosable psychosis, but if you haven't, it can be difficult to accept how the beliefs present.
> Interesting that "psychotic disorders" can be replaced with "tribalism" and still be true
That's because both are defects of rational reasoning.
I view it this way: The only difference is "disorders" are generally harmful to both the individual and society while "tribalism" is often beneficial to the individual (making allies, strenght in unity, status as you said, ...) even if it's harmful to society as a whole.
This is a good article, but I dislike how the start defines delusions as "fixed, false beliefs that cannot be changed by evidence". Many delusions seem wrong to others without any solid evidence that can conclusively prove that they're wrong. For example, if someone says they're the second coming of Jesus, or if someone believes the CIA has mind control satellites, that seems obviously ridiculous, but you cannot disprove that.
It might be a wrong belief or harmful belief or unhealthy belief but it's not a psychotic belief. I should know, I'm just a little psychotic. I'm not quite sure if my belief that I can transform into a fox is psychotic or not.
If you'd actually believe in some sort of a global catastrophe that is just on the horizon you wouldn't be wasting time arguing with people on the internet
This is the list they compiled, with a little hash if it was in the DSM-V before this study:
• Persecutory/paranoid #
• Reference #
• Family/relatives
• Grandiose #
• Passivity
• Schneiderian
• Neighbours/friends/associates
• Spied on/watched
• Paranormal
• Sexual
• Poisoning
• Religious
• Control #
• Mindreading
• Special powers/skills
• Infidelty
• Bizarre #
• Perception
• Thought broadcast #
• Somatic #
• Police/secret agent/army
• Religious leader/God/Prophet/Saint
• Thought insertion #
• Jealousy #
• Guilt/sin
• Made affect
• Hypochondriacal
• Fantastic delusional memories
• Thought withdrawal
• Erotomanic heterosexual #
• Possession
• Primary
• Catastrophe/world catastrophe
• Poverty
• Nihilistic/negation
• Spy/surveillance
• Made impulse
The authors’ primary goal appears to not have been to shed light on the diversity of delusional experience, but to indicate some evidence that it is culturally sensitive, so right after this chart, we get into the discussion section and it discusses how in East Asia you can find slightly more delusions of jealousy, in Eastern Europe you can find slightly more delusions of guilt/sin, in their dataset.
Reinterpreting it as this press release does, as a survey of the variety of delusional experience, makes for some interesting food for thought, but a lot of the categories identified kind of are just who are you being paranoid about, and what do you think they are doing. So you might have thought that people are afraid of strangers, this data set points to them being more delusional about family members, or thinking strangers are government spies, it's perhaps surprisingly not a stranger as a stranger that is terrifying? (Compare e.g. with the widespread worry among parents that a stranger might abduct their child.)
The passivity delusion (“I’m not in control of my body, someone else takes over”) and Schneiderian delusion (which I think is “someone is narrating my life in a Stanley Parable-esque way”?) seem like solid omissions on the DSM-V's part, but after that I feel like I am scrolling down to hypochondriacal and “Fantastic delusional memories” (which is presumably something like “I actually went to Narnia when I was a kid, it's a real place”?) before I see things that genuinely strike me as, I didn't realize some folks have those delusions in their schizophrenia or whatever.
Your profile is a fun read. As long as you don't go and try and harm your mother because "she's been taken by alien visitors" you're free to believe whatever you want just like religious people believe in their own stuff.
Edit: by fun I don't mean necessarily good fiction, the typical self aggrandizing stuff you hear from religions, but it's just fun to find it in a forum like this, played straight.
When I read of a man from California killing his kids in Mexico because they are possessed by lizard people, or mothers killing their kids because the voice of God in their mind says so, I think of this quote I cannot quite place: to be silent in the face of a tyranny of evil is to be complicit.
No greater evil in this world exists than American Thought Control, thought controlled Americans, or an America thought controlled.
Your profile is a fun read. As long as you don't go and try and harm your mother because "she's been taken by alien visitors" you're free to believe whatever you want just like religious people believe in their own stuff.
From hateful experiences, this is bullshit. In 2019 I was accused in court that "Blacks...Muslims are a delusion." I've dated both as a Muslim convert and won the case.
I said my family are jealous. January 2014 mother tried to invite 2 guys on my first African American date. Both parents banned minorities from the house. Most psychiatrists make things worse. Mother claims I'm not part of the computer industry because I am poor. Despite reading about Linux hours a day since at least the year 2000.
The "terror of global catastrophe" is what doomscroller media constantly hammers onto its readers. And once someone has "bought in", it's impossible to reason with them. They'll just forever spread anxiety around them.
What's interesting is how it happens. Take someone who is mentally stable and subject them to a terminally online lifestyle for a year or two. They will have tons of anxiety about all sorts of things, not the least of which will be that the world is doomed (with no hope), that our societies and way of life are in the "late stage" and moments from collapse, and so on.
And it's a bit of a tragedy. If we took only the energy that people spend evangelizing those doom beliefs and put that energy into productive efforts, that alone could probably prevent whatever disaster is being evangelized. But maybe that'd not be good for engagement on social media or something.
Good insight, thanks. I've been struggling with existential dread related to https://ai-2027.com/ - trying to refute the arguments is exhausting, I should probably just ignore it and get on with my life.
Fears about AI misalignment look like a modern, secular Pascal's Wager. It's hedge against a low-probability, infinite-cost outcome. The Rationalist version builds a matrix where one cell is -inf, and from that, derives an imperative to act, regardless of how speculative the premise is.
However, once you admit infinite utilities and epistemic humility about probabilities, you can justify literally anything. The same construction could obligate you to worship simulation overlords, or to develop interstellar missile defense in case of hostile alien AIs. That's not a rational risk model, it's theological reasoning dressed up in Bayesian costume.
This stuff operates on the boundary of plausibility, the intelligent paranoid mind generates scenarios that can't be conclusively ruled out but also can't be grounded in anything falsifiable. That's not where productive engineering lives.
The escape hatch here is the same one we used for Pascal's Wager: you reject the premise. You don't hand the keys of your threat model over to speculative infinities. You work on problems you can see, measure, and influence. You don't respond to every "what if?" with a fire drill. Recognizing that this is a failure mode in human cognition is enough to avoid it.
Yes, there are real risks with AI: bias, misuse, surveillance capitalism, economic displacement. These are all tractable, all human-driven. But the misalignment discourse? It's less a bet against an existential outcome and more a projection of philosophical anxieties onto a technical domain. And once you frame it that way, it's clear: this isn't engineering. Folks doing this are playing metaphysics in front of a terminal emulator.
AGI does sound a lot like a "psychological crutch" when it is pointed at as the answer for wicked problems like climate change. With faith in AGI, nothing else really matters because we can eventually surrender ourselves to the superior direction and interventions of this god we have created. There's no point worrying about anything else.
Human technology has evolved significantly in the last few thousand years but we are all the same religious fruitcakes we've always been, whether or not we can see it.
This is wrong, and follows aspects of nihilism.
The comparison to Pascal's Wager is apt - I came to the same conclusion when I first read about Roko's Basilisk, but the insight somehow slipped from my mind. It's like an epistemic tarpit attractor.
Actually that one is probably real, and you should probably try to stop it if you're able.
My approach is a simple one, to use economics to make development of further models a really bad idea at scale https://andrew-quinn.me/ai-bounties - but many other, smarter people have attacked this problem and we're still not totally sure how to stop it.
That's very interesting. It seems to assume AI agents will have the same evolutionary imperative as other species. But without the ecological context, it looks like an unfounded premise. Why would AI play the 4X game, considering the infinity of alternative imperatives it could follow?
You’re having existential dread over pure science fiction written by people who have something to gain from LLM companies becoming profitable?
You have it right. Just ignore the grifters. These companies are burning billions and are realizing they don’t have an exit strategy so they’re becoming desperate.
Just ignore the grifters.
Existential dread is not unwarranted but you do need to choose the arguments that are most likely to happen, and focus your energies on those rather than be sidetracked by spurious outcomes that may never come to pass.
There are many false narratives meant to distract, and you'll have to discern which ones are true and it can be exhausting if you let it. This is how 5th-Generation-Warfare (5GW) is.
I'll tell you right now, its highly unlikely that AGI will occur, because the properties required for computation make it nigh impossible.
It doesn't need to do this to be an existential threat. All it needs to do is disrupt the economic cycle sufficiently to stall economic activity, and it does so quite easily.
An economic cycle stalling leads to chaotic socio-economic collapse and a loss of order. Current population levels are only made possible by dependencies which have been made brittle over time, relying on continued order for survival just to produce enough food. I'm sure you've heard of the Malthusian Trap, you may not have revisited later works touching on Malthus by Catton in the 90s.
The economic cycle is a circular cycle between workers and producers. We exist today because of an equitable distribution of labor which is compensated.
There is also the issue of money printing, which is too long to discuss here. Needless to say there are two requirements that must be met to continue the cycle sustainably (avoiding chaotic whipsaw and stalling). Producers must make a profit in purchasing power, People must make a profit supporting a wife and three children sufficient so that one makes it to have children themselves, also in purchasing power.
Money printing eventually causes money to lose its store of value (property), and when that happens medium of exchange is lost as well. Stalling of the economy, and same issue.
There are at least 6 other avenues by which this same outcome occurs, and they are in systems we can no longer change, its runaway. Solutions like UBI fail for other equally impossible problems, albeit they are more indirect but still end in chaotic whipsaws, distortions (artificial supply constraint), etc.
AI doesn't need to be AGI. All it needs to do is disrupt and eliminate the majority of entry level positions of the career development pipeline.
Within a 10 year cycle, collapse will become unavoidable as a matter of math. The output of a pipeline depends upon the input of the pipeline, it is always less for all values above 0. 0 in 0 out.
Man ages out of careers and die eventually. No people to mentor, that knowledge dies with them.
What you just described is an idea that's around intellectual circles about the nature of power in this era. It's the idea behind the book "Ipnocrazia" (not yet released), which gained fame around europe and south america.
Citing from the top of my head: "Simulation isn't imitating the real anymore, simulation precedes the real"
If I understand it right, tragedy is first simulated. Once the simulation is bought by the population, it gives the ruling class a reason to act how they really want to act, and the tragedy is made real.
In other words. It's population control without coercion.
A narrative puts people in a trance (they're hypnotized), inhibiting their cognitive capacity. The narrative is the simulation. The goal is to make people fearful and disoriented so they delegate their cognitive capacity to "illuminated" rulers, accepting the simulation as real.
If i were to put it in real terms. Let's spread the narrative of an incoming world war 3. Once it's settled, the population will just accept world war 3 as a matter of fact, unavoidable. This would allow us, the ruler class, to extend trump's presidency even beyond.
That assumes a level of structure and control to society that simply doesn’t exist.
I don’t know why people so often fall into the trap of assuming someone or something is running things, but chaos seems to be anathema to how people perceive the world. God(s), fate, luck, karma, magic etc have been supplanted by the everything from hidden cabals, aliens, etc but I don’t think the underlying psychology is really any different.
I think you are making some assumptions there. All of the things the parent comment mentioned can come about through emergent behaviors. Every actor operating independently yet influenced towards a certain direction via the incentives/disincentives that the system provides them.
> population control without coercion
Isn’t how you describe an emergent phenomena, a flock of birds is the thing that moves it doesn’t make sense to say it’s controlled.
Well I don’t think what the OP is describing is a puppet master pulling strings. There are definitely individuals pushing their own agendas to gain control over masses, which obviously has emergent outcomes.
Contradictory agendas has emergent properties, but the outcome isn’t under any specific groups control.
The world is chaotic, but that doesn't mean power is symmetric between everyone.
> In other words. It's population control without coercion.
Power asymmetry doesn’t imply control. Exxon has orders of magnitude more influence on the price of gas than I do, but it’s influence not control.
Funny how what the book talks about… is exactly what’s happening. Kind of meta.
The author doesn’t exist. The whole essay is fake—or a “philosophical experiment”[1], according to Andrea Colamedici, the real italian author behind it, who was supposedly just the translator. And those words aren’t his either. They came from two AI platforms (still unnamed).
It’s been a scandal in publishing, and in all the universities and newspapers that praised it as a fresh way to understand the present.
Now, of course, intellectuals and journalists are justifying “the intellectual debate the book sparked”, asking if these new “philosophical entities” are the start of a new wave of “hybrid works...” and so on.
Well. They’ve basically discovered "vibe philosophizing": feeling deep truths without knowing where they come from or why they sound right.
[1] More: https://english.elpais.com/technology/2025-04-07/jianwei-xun...
I'm not sure why you say it's a scandal. The author worked with the publishing company from the start, and from the start the intention was to "unveil" the truth to make an impact.
> And those words aren’t his either. They came from two AI platforms (still unnamed).
According to interviews, he used AI platforms in a very specific way that couldn't be called "vibe philosophizing". It seems he treated the AI as a mirror instead of a system that would give him answers. I'm waiting for an extended interview this sunday, but if I understand it right he used AI as a tool for self-reflection and self-questioning.
> I'm not sure why you say it's a scandal. The author worked with the publishing company from the start, and from the start the intention was to "unveil" the truth to make an impact.
That just means he didn’t lie alone. They lied as a group. They lied to the newspapers that interviewed Jianwei Xun, they lied to the bookstores that sold a non-existent author, they lied to readers and academics, they violated the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, which considers it a serious offense to fail to label AI-generated text, video, or audio. The book doesn’t clarify this in any of its editions.[1]
I get your point about the marketing strategy. That doesn’t change the fact that it was a lie.
Several newspapers have already retracted or pulled their original articles about the “clever stunt” by the Italian author. New spanish editions will now include an explanation of the actual writing process (with AI), as well as the mixed identity behind the author's name.[2]
A scandal.
And yes, I think the experiment is interesting. But they lied, not just my opinion. That’s what every newspapers who interviewed a ghost is now saying.
> According to interviews, he used AI platforms in a very specific way that couldn't be called "vibe philosophizing"
I was referring to the intellectuals now justifying the experiment of working with AI. (They’ve basically discovered “vibe philosophizing”) I wasn’t referring to him. He clearly knew what he was doing.
> It seems he treated the AI as a mirror instead of a system that would give him answers.
Right. Except… I’m not the one saying:
- “Jianwei Xun emerged in late 2024 as a distributed philosophical entity born from the collaborative interaction between human intelligence and artificial intelligence systems.”
- “Xun's true nature as a hybrid intellectual construct…”
That’s from the author’s own official page.[3]
[1] https://english.elpais.com/technology/2025-04-07/jianwei-xun... [2] https://www.lanacion.com.ar/tecnologia/jianwei-xun-autor-de-... [3] https://jianweixun.com/
I'm just going to clarify one point.
> Right. Except… I’m not the one saying:
I've read the interview I mentioned before and he explains how he used the AI and which AIs he used.[1]
It might be a bit confusing. He thinks of the author of the book (the final product of "prompt thinking") as something that's not him and it's not AI either, and that's why he phrased the use of AI like that. Basically, he says he could not have written the book without AI because he would not have thought of the concepts without AI, but he also says AI didn't write the book.
It's true that even if he wrote everything, he used AI to help him think ("prompt thinking"). I imagine that philosophically speaking for him, the book isn't entirely his. In the interview he also talks about how AI manipulates. You can't escape AI manipulation, but you can't be out of the loop. You have to be conscious about the fact that you're being manipulated at all times.
About prompt thinking: it seems to be a technique that uses AI to facilitate thinking in people. It's the reverse of using AI as an oracle.
https://www.perfil.com/noticias/periodismopuro/hipnocracia-d...
It sounds a bit like shifting the Overton Window to manufacture consent. I'm sure some people probably tried to do it.
Hypnocracy would be a societal structure in which democracy and free choice is an illusion. The population's perception of reality would be manufactured by the ruling class without coercion or persuasion.
The Overton Window only makes sense when there's free choice.
Isn’t that Baudrillard?
Yup, sounds like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation
Us? Lol
You don't need to be brainwashed to be pessimistic today.
I think there is a fundamental difference between such social phenomena and the seemingly solitary delusions that happen in recognized mental illness such as schizophrenia.
The anxiety spreaders are a political phenomena. It's mostly about blaming the "other side" and framing it as the cause for world collapse. Those people don't actually believe a catastrophe is going to happen. They already think they are being productive by hacking the political spectrum. In other words, imbecile automaton panfleteers.
What you described has nothing to do with schizophrenia. You are mixing up two distinct behaviors by a single theme (world ending catastrophes).
so we are completely ignoring the science, now, ey?
someone always has more data. 50 years for you might be a lot but someone else will tell you they are gone faster than you think.
a) doomers are just buffs, superficial or nerdy.
b) never forget that due to how the web and social hierarchies are build, some people have an ugly information flow, are constantly lied to, and bots flood their feeds with the worst shit just because they had a bit of moment, once.
some people are stilled told EV's are shit, buy a diesel. they are told so by some sort of "authority". or: "don't get a credit for "solar" if you don't have half the money right away" ( even though you'd start to save/make money after 10 years but you don't know math and that person is some sort of "authority" )
the world is full of mostly sub-average competence in positions or with the status of some sort of "authority" and these sub-average competent people, some of them saved and domesticated dogs, absolutely need others to have it worse then them so they will feed them lies whenever those people need advice. and these dogs usually work in collectives.
truthy information flow is imperative but even the German state media slaps incomplete or outright misinformation into their audience brains' all the freaking time. it's ugly, especially if you read and watch news from a bunch of international and national sources, which is why the educated youth stopped caring long ago and gladly joins Ponzi narratives ... written and played by people who rely on misinformation, polarization and some sort of ... "show" ... it's boring until the future arrives and there's nothing but obedience and or confusion and or drugs to cope with either or both.
critical thinking is a dying idea, a skill soon extinct. defense mechanisms against it are hard-wired into languages and schools of thought ... the whole "just doin' my job" thing got outta hand because a bunch of other people were sabotaged just doing their jobs ... but someone makes you feel cool, or luxury does ... and that's that.
The tragedy is in the flawed thinking this type of article promotes to the layperson.
A professional has a duty of care to diagnose correctly, delusion by its very definition is a false belief that is believed to be true. The professional may lose their license if they do not diagnose correctly.
The layperson will read this and say, global catastrophe, fear of poisoning, persecution etc, and discount/nullify these entire categories regardless of whether they may be true or false given the circumstances. They choose to ignore it, and worse through nullification compulse others towards that false belief.
Now when it does happen to be true because hey, WW2 happened, and hey Hitler's rise to power followed milestones which Trump has been following, or better yet the collapse of the currency which is a known fact to happen and based in science and history when money-printing gets out of control... these fears are warranted, and should be listened to and inspire action to correct, but these type of articles condition people to discount and nullify such things and by extension ensuring those things happen when the circumstances are true because they have blinded themselves.
That's how evil works in people. It is a self-blinding to the consequences of destructive acts, to the point where those acts are repeated until they are forcefully stopped.
A fear of poisoning may be quite relevant in cases of new technology where we have no frame of reference for adequate safety because its new, like those who are part of the vaccine injured.
I think its quite important for every one today to objectively revisit their sentiment and beliefs, following Descartes Method.
Many of the things believed today by many are quite delusional, and mass delusion does happen in systems where the people have been exposed to torture whether they know it or not.
The delusional don't base their measure in objective external reality.
Robert Lifton, Robert Cialdini, Joost Meerloo, are well established authors who touch on the elements of torture, structure, and clustering.
If you've been significantly downvoted for a personal opinion, technically you've been exposed to torture.
Few in fact realize this though because its indirect, and most people won't follow the indirections back. It takes advantage of a strategy which Nazi's, and Mao used, but also the Stasi perfected, and really everyone uses today in sensitive positions.
The separation of objectionable concerns.
As for why we see this in so many online platforms. Its 5GW, and the platform maintainers are complicit, either through a corruption by dependency scheme, or just improper priorities believing its better to do or provide something than nothing even if they can't solve the problem. There is a financial interest towards this which drives this forward.
Either way, action or inaction is a choice they made. Regardless of initial hope, destructive outcomes (negligence) and intent (choice to act or not) turn this into malice/malevolence. Even if they have isolated themselves so they don't know willfully, they are still accountable for their actions and choices.
Fed
The paper doesn't seem to actually define their categories anywhere. Am I just missing it? Or am I meant to intuitively know the difference between "spied on / watched" and "spy / surveillance"?
Edit - upon re-reading, it seems like they're just using the themes present in the underlying literature, with _extremely_ conservative merging. Which makes the headline claim, that there are 37 distinct themes, pretty pointless. Is "spied on" really a distinct theme from "surveillance"? More likely, there's just no standardised name for it.
If no one told me about this being about schizophrenia, I would interpret Figure 3 as a categorization of american movies and series.
Or maybe the internet. People love to dramatize these things.
I took the most obvious cultural displacement industry as an example of the correlation between tropes, personas and delusions. Of course the internet is another one of those.
Whether is it the cause or not, it is impossible to say, at least in the way the paper studies it ("meta-analysis,", another way of saying "loose correlation").
People love it? I don't know. Maybe it's like an addiction instead of a real desire for it. Have you ever been in a culture without those elements to know what is like?
Anyway. Talking seriously now, schizophrenia is a big elephant in the world's room. Lots of correlations, no clear cause. The more you look into it, the more the cause seems to be inexistent.
Given its current symptoms-based definition, with very low effort, anyone could be classified as schizophrenic. Just one push to disrupt "normal everyday functioning behavior" and even the most sane person could end up in the schizo bucket.
The standard DSM-5 delusions are are "bizarre, jealousy, erotomanic, grandiose, control, reference, persecutory, somatic, thought broadcasting, and insertion". Those covers a sizable fraction of Hollywood film plots. That says something important about something.
Has anyone looked at similar studies from, say, five years ago? I worry that half of what was labeled “delusional” back then is now a widely accepted opinion.
Feels like we're one step away from a follow-up paper titled "We regret to inform you: The paranoid were just early."
Not saying everything turns out to be true - just that social consensus tends to shift a lot faster than clinical definitions.
The clinical definition of delusion includes social consensus. From DSM-5:
"Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. […] The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity."
That's an escape hatch for religion.
I always wondered if there was a clinical basis for that escape hatch or if the drafting committee felt it was just too contentious to go there.
Probably the latter. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a diagnosis in 1973, by a vote of 5,854 to 3,810. Gender identity disorder was removed from the DSM in 2017.
It seems like there is a continuum between being oblivious and delusional. You need to notice things, recognize their meaning, make connections and then make conclusions. Being oblivious can mean missing important signs and making bad choices due to not realizing what is happening. Being delusional can mean jumping to conclusions by "connecting the dots" in one particular way that leads to one conclusion even though that may not be the truth. A sane perspective would mean evaluating different hypotheses to come to a reasonable conclusion. Someone who is paranoid may be right about some things much earlier than others, but they may also be wrong about many other things.
I think in many circumstances certain outcomes emerged because the paranoid willed it into existence. I get the feeling there are a lot doomsayers who secretly want the end of civilization to occur so that they can finally act out their fantasies, delusions, say they were right, etc.
What on earth is going on in the comment section? Do diagnosis articles always attract “examples”?
> Delusions — fixed, false beliefs that cannot be changed by evidence — are a key symptom of many psychotic disorders
Interesting that "psychotic disorders" can be replaced with "tribalism" and still be true. We can easily identify such false beliefs in other tribes but often have a blind spot for them in our own.
But in terms of tribes or politics it is not clear that this is a disorder. Believing the same false things as our neighbors is often rewarded with status, wealth and mating opportunities, while failing to do so can be deadly. What converts the same tendency into psychosis can be merely the context: it's psychotic to believe false things when there is no social advantage to it and it therefore becomes unfit. But the same is true of believing true things when they conflict with a tribe's deeply held false beliefs.
Like a propensity to violence, believing false things can be a deadly strategy. Or it can be the only strategy that allows a chance for survival. And you may not know which until it is too late. It would be nice to live in a world where violence and false beliefs are consistently maladaptive, but that isn't this one.
You need to read about psychosis. Meaning, the clinical term, its causes, experience, and treatment. You’re conflating it with a critique you seem to have of people’s behavior. If you knew more I don’t think you’d do that.
In the medical definition, "fixed" is an important aspect of it. Maybe you have interacted with people with diagnosable psychosis, but if you haven't, it can be difficult to accept how the beliefs present.
Beliefs and behavior are usually only a disorder if they interfere with the normal functioning of everyday life (whatever that is).
Like, maybe you believe you are a mongoose, but as long as you can still happily eat / sleep / work / socialize then it’s not disordered.
I try to believe one false thing a day. Like a glass of wine. Good for the heart.
> Interesting that "psychotic disorders" can be replaced with "tribalism" and still be true
That's because both are defects of rational reasoning.
I view it this way: The only difference is "disorders" are generally harmful to both the individual and society while "tribalism" is often beneficial to the individual (making allies, strenght in unity, status as you said, ...) even if it's harmful to society as a whole.
This is a good article, but I dislike how the start defines delusions as "fixed, false beliefs that cannot be changed by evidence". Many delusions seem wrong to others without any solid evidence that can conclusively prove that they're wrong. For example, if someone says they're the second coming of Jesus, or if someone believes the CIA has mind control satellites, that seems obviously ridiculous, but you cannot disprove that.
> terror of global catastrophe
That's considered a delusion?
If you are so terrified that it interferes with your normal everyday personal functioning, then yes.
It might be a wrong belief or harmful belief or unhealthy belief but it's not a psychotic belief. I should know, I'm just a little psychotic. I'm not quite sure if my belief that I can transform into a fox is psychotic or not.
If you'd actually believe in some sort of a global catastrophe that is just on the horizon you wouldn't be wasting time arguing with people on the internet
This is the list they compiled, with a little hash if it was in the DSM-V before this study:
• Persecutory/paranoid #
• Reference #
• Family/relatives
• Grandiose #
• Passivity
• Schneiderian
• Neighbours/friends/associates
• Spied on/watched
• Paranormal
• Sexual
• Poisoning
• Religious
• Control #
• Mindreading
• Special powers/skills
• Infidelty
• Bizarre #
• Perception
• Thought broadcast #
• Somatic #
• Police/secret agent/army
• Religious leader/God/Prophet/Saint
• Thought insertion #
• Jealousy #
• Guilt/sin
• Made affect
• Hypochondriacal
• Fantastic delusional memories
• Thought withdrawal
• Erotomanic heterosexual #
• Possession
• Primary
• Catastrophe/world catastrophe
• Poverty
• Nihilistic/negation
• Spy/surveillance
• Made impulse
The authors’ primary goal appears to not have been to shed light on the diversity of delusional experience, but to indicate some evidence that it is culturally sensitive, so right after this chart, we get into the discussion section and it discusses how in East Asia you can find slightly more delusions of jealousy, in Eastern Europe you can find slightly more delusions of guilt/sin, in their dataset.
Reinterpreting it as this press release does, as a survey of the variety of delusional experience, makes for some interesting food for thought, but a lot of the categories identified kind of are just who are you being paranoid about, and what do you think they are doing. So you might have thought that people are afraid of strangers, this data set points to them being more delusional about family members, or thinking strangers are government spies, it's perhaps surprisingly not a stranger as a stranger that is terrifying? (Compare e.g. with the widespread worry among parents that a stranger might abduct their child.)
The passivity delusion (“I’m not in control of my body, someone else takes over”) and Schneiderian delusion (which I think is “someone is narrating my life in a Stanley Parable-esque way”?) seem like solid omissions on the DSM-V's part, but after that I feel like I am scrolling down to hypochondriacal and “Fantastic delusional memories” (which is presumably something like “I actually went to Narnia when I was a kid, it's a real place”?) before I see things that genuinely strike me as, I didn't realize some folks have those delusions in their schizophrenia or whatever.
[flagged]
Your profile is a fun read. As long as you don't go and try and harm your mother because "she's been taken by alien visitors" you're free to believe whatever you want just like religious people believe in their own stuff.
Edit: by fun I don't mean necessarily good fiction, the typical self aggrandizing stuff you hear from religions, but it's just fun to find it in a forum like this, played straight.
You are exactly right.
When I read of a man from California killing his kids in Mexico because they are possessed by lizard people, or mothers killing their kids because the voice of God in their mind says so, I think of this quote I cannot quite place: to be silent in the face of a tyranny of evil is to be complicit.
No greater evil in this world exists than American Thought Control, thought controlled Americans, or an America thought controlled.
I am quite sincere friend.
Your profile is a fun read. As long as you don't go and try and harm your mother because "she's been taken by alien visitors" you're free to believe whatever you want just like religious people believe in their own stuff.
From hateful experiences, this is bullshit. In 2019 I was accused in court that "Blacks...Muslims are a delusion." I've dated both as a Muslim convert and won the case.
I said my family are jealous. January 2014 mother tried to invite 2 guys on my first African American date. Both parents banned minorities from the house. Most psychiatrists make things worse. Mother claims I'm not part of the computer industry because I am poor. Despite reading about Linux hours a day since at least the year 2000.
direct link to paper (the numbers are on page 5)
https://watermark.silverchair.com/sbae225.pdf?token=AQECAHi2...
Worse than the DOI link at the end of the article, which points directly to the OA paper available at the publishers page.
The link at the end of the article is how I found the link I posted.
I did not break the internet by making a URL that is not a universal resource link.
> Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again.
Direct linking doesn’t work
Well, you have left the token in. But it needs a token, so it will be faster to use the link in the web pages.
Web users struggle to download PDF about AI taking over the world