you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Huh? The whole point of this emerging scientific debate is that AI use might be proportionally unsafe, i. e. it might be a risk factor causing and/or exacerbating psychosis. Now sure this is still just a hypothesis and it's too early to make definite epidemiological statements, but it's just as wrong to blankly state that AI is "still just as safe".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 10 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Alright, but the point is that the "X level of safety" AI is at might be a dangerous level in the first place. I don't think anybody is arguing that AI got more dangerous as a psychosis risk factor over the past year or so, they're arguing that AI was a risk factor to begin with, and with increased AI use more evidence of this turns up. So you saying that the inherent risk of AI hasn't changed is kind of a moot point because that's not what the debate is about.

    Also notice that I clearly said it's too early to tell one way or the other, so there's no reason to malign me as uncritical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -10 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    I can agree with that. (As an aside, I think scientific findings are almost always exaggerated like this in popular journalism.)

    I'd say the long and short of it is that we simply don't (and can't) know yet. But I think more research on possible links between AI and psychotic delusions is definitely useful, because I find the idea of a connection plausible.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)