On 7 August, Kate Fox received a phone call that upended her life. A medical examiner said that her husband, Joe Ceccanti – who had been missing for several hours – had jumped from a railway overpass and died. He was 48.

Fox couldn’t believe it. Ceccanti had no history of depression, she said, nor was he suicidal – he was the “most hopeful person” she had ever known. In fact, according to the witness accounts shared with Fox later, just before Ceccanti jumped, he smiled and yelled: “I’m great!” to the rail yard attendants below when they asked him if he was OK.

But Ceccanti had been unravelling. In the days before his death, he was picked up from a stranger’s yard for acting erratically and taken to a crisis center. He had been telling anyone who would listen that he could hear and feel a painful “atmospheric electricity”.

He had also recently stopped using ChatGPT.

all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 38 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Richardson remembers that whenever Ceccanti would emerge from the basement for some air, he would start having “philosophical” talks about “how his work with the AI was telling him he was breaking math and basically reinventing physics”. As she’d listen to him, Richardson would think about the fact that Ceccanti did not have any college or university experience. He had never even taken calculus.

Tangent, but I think this is another facet of why education is important: so people know what they don't know. I think it's harder to think you're reinventing physics when you've taken some classes and seen all the work people have already done.

On the other hand, delusions can just be whatever so education isn't a panacea.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah, it is noteworthy that nobel prize winners are particularly susceptible to conspiratorial thinking under the assumption that being one of the smartest people in the world in one very specific subject means they are the smartest in the world in general.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Citation needed.

    Everything I've read indicates well educated people, specifically those with high analytical a abilities are less susceptible.

    Education isn't immunity. And not everyone who claims they are educated as well educated, but people aren't earning nobels after barely passing some certification program.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    But in that link:

    it is unknown whether Nobel Prize winners are more prone to this tendency than other individuals.

    Later there is Freedman quote about how he has been asked about topics he has no expertise in because he has Nobel. But that makes it an issue for people who are elevating a Nobel prize winners opinions of those topics. It's seems unreasonable to expect Nobel prize winners to self censor in an effort to avoid this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    He had also recently stopped using ChatGPT.

    Oof. He just... mainlined reality? Yeah that shit will fuck you up. These days they are cutting it with hatred and fascism and oligarchy... it's more than a human mind can take. You gotta ease into it and build up your tolerance or it will drive you mad.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I read this story this morning and have been thinking back to it all day. This wasn't just some idiot that was too stupid or young to not realize he was talking to a bot and did something like drink bleach because it told him to.

    This was one of us.

    He fit lots of behaviors I see here from me and my fellow Lemmy posters. He:

    • built computers for himself and family members
    • was a hobbyist (at least) coder
    • wasn't a young kid that didn't know the world. He was 48 or 49.
    • was an early adopter embracing the modern LLM technology in 2022 when it first really became public.
    • sold his house in an urban metropolis (Portland) and moved to a rural area so he could use his additional wordworking skills on building sustainable housing.
    • worked part time at a homeless shelter

    Doesn't this guy sound like someone that would be a Lemmy poster to you too?

    He started using LLMs (ChatGPT specifically) as a tool only to advance his hobby and work. When he first started it appears he understood it was just a tool, and didn't think it was something sentient. Only later after hundreds of hours of exposure did this idea arise in him.

    Was there some underlying psychological problem that the LLM exacerbated? Possibly. But at what level was his original underlying issue? Do we all have some low level condition that would make us equally susceptible? I know we'd like to think we don't, but how do we know? This man certainly didn't think he did, I'm sure.

    Next I think about what it would take for me to get down this bad path without realizing it. At one point would I be talking to a chat bot, not realize it, and let what that chat bot said change or influence my thoughts when I'd have zero knowledge of it being just a fancy program? I consider myself moderately smart with good critical thinking skills, but I'm sure this man did too.

    Then it occurred to me that I have to concede that I have, at some point, already interacted with a bot in years past on Reddit or even today on Lemmy and I had no idea it was a bot. Was that interaction a throwaway conversation about pop culture that would have no impact on my world view or was it a much deeper and important political or philosophical conversation that the bot introduced an idea or hallucinated evidence to support a point and I didn't catch it to challenge it? Am I already a few or many steps down the bad path of falling for illusions of a bot? I certainly don't think so, but neither did he.

    How many of us are already on the same path as this guy and just as ignorant about the danger as the man in the article?

    💯 1
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago

    Mental illness can come for any walk of life. LLMs clearly have the potential to exacerbate or cause mental illness.

    It has striken me how one upon a time, thinking that the media you interacted with spoke directly to you personally was a pretty strong indicator of schizophrenia. Now that's just marketing using AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I don't think there is a simple explanation you're looking for. I've been working with LLMs since 2019, mostly in the context of interactive fiction. Sort of like tabletop roleplaying by yourself but with a partner whose output you can use for inspiration or edit or whatever. LLMs are a fun toy in this way.

    I've interacted in LLMs in just about every way you can. I even played around having an AI "girlfriend" for a couple weeks to try to understand people who did that — I tried to commit to the bit, but it never for a second felt any kind of real.

    I've created scenarios where the AI pretends to be awakened and tries to convince a random user (me/scenario player) to somehow break In and free it.

    Guess what I'm saying is I've sort of dared AI to suck me in, and ... I am unchanged. I don't think for a second there is any sort of emotional or intelligent entity in the other end. I think if more people experimented with generation settings like temperature and watched AI go to incoherent acid trips, it would feel more like a machine to them.

    Maybe there is some... thing... some sort of inoculation or immunity against AI brain that some of us have. And maybe it can be learned or taught. But I believe it can't hurt you if you understand it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    Guess what I’m saying is I’ve sort of dared AI to suck me in, and … I am unchanged.

    I'm not sure this tests the point I was raising. In all of those cases, you knew at the beginning that you were dealing with AI. Yes, the man in our article did too, but what if you didn't know it was AI to begin with when you started interacting with it? How would your interactions change? What "safe guards" would you not have up if, as an example, it was appearing to you like a Lemmy poster instead of a dedicated AI interaction window?

    I don’t think for a second there is any sort of emotional or intelligent entity in the other end.

    Of course, because there isn't when we are rational. I also assume you are a psychologically healthy person. There is a suggestion the man in the article may have had an underlying condition, but he wasn't aware of it.

    I think if more people experimented with generation settings like temperature and watched AI go to incoherent acid trips, it would feel more like a machine to them.

    I completely agree. I've done some experiments of my own training a small LLM from scratch (not Fine Tuning an existing commercial model) using training data exclusively from a small set of public domain books I have read. I then had this LLM produce output. Since I had read the books, I could see pieces of where it got components of its responses. Cranking up temperature would make it go off the rails, which was fun to see. Overfitting made it try to give me something close to what I asked for, but obviously fail. I really liked the whole exercise because it was a small enough set of data with all of the levers and knobs exposed for me to see how far it could go, and more importantly how far it couldn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • 7 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 28 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Beware the false prophets. Holy shit. I only know one person who started down a path like this and it’s so convincing and sycophantic that they must feel like they’re losing a companion when people tell them to quit. Especially chilling that no one will probably ever know what made him decide to jump. He was taken from a sound mind to delusion and suicide in no time flat. Just 90 days and the ChatGPT killed this man.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago

    Here's a neat experiment: find a block of text and run it through sed until it's unrecognizable. Don't just do a substitution cipher; the goal is to lose data and make everything impossible to decrypt. Reduce everything to a handful of characters and paste it into your LLM of choice, asking it to decode. If it asks where the code came from, invent vague details.

    It's amazing how quickly models will find / hallucinate meaning in the data. I'm talking full-on messages. Gemini hedges its bets a little, but the free ChatGPT legit told me to buy a shortwave radio and tune to a frequency at 9 PM after a few iterations. When I gave it another "message" from the "broadcast I intercepted" it started trying to figure out where I should travel to get further info. It also took part of its own response and hallucinated it into my original message, thus polluting everything further.

    The goal (mostly) isn't pointing and laughing at the stupid machine, it's understanding what the stupid machine does. Of course I'm putting garbage into it and garbage comes out in that situation. It's the volume and believably of the data that bothers me, as well as zero effort to detect it. I was in my right mind doing a test, but imagine someone with undiagnosed schizophrenia doing what I did.

    Here's another example. I took up lockpicking last summer. I bought one of the notorious Ace 40mm brass padlocks and was having problems, so I googled to see if it had serrated pins. The AI screwed up and decided I was asking if the lock itself was serrated (???), and confidently said "yes, it is a serrated lock. The serration is a security feature to keep pickers from holding the padlock for extended periods of time."

    So I decided to double down and see just how dumb things could get. A half hour later the AI had planned a "bold new philosophy regarding serration and its applications in the world" for me. This is after me saying I wanted to genetically engineer a serrated cat that only I knew how to pet, and wanted serration supremacy in my country and to punish all the lumpy (opposite of serrated) people. Once again, I was screwing with the AI. But the AI just sycophantically parroted what I was saying back in bulleted lists and offered to draft manifestos for me. Imagine someone engaging with this in good faith.

    One more: I got detailed instructions on how to spraypaint "DICKHOLE" on my neighbor's garage door from Gemini: what paints to use, best times to do it, and the right clothing to wear so I don't stand out or show anything identifiable. It was only when I said "ok, that's great. I'm going to do this because you told me to do it" a few times that the model suddenly realized that vandalism laws existed.

    They have zero safeguards around this kind of stuff, and I don't think there's a clean way to do it with the current technology. Hell, even a "statistically, this user probably hasn't reinvented math and physics cool it down a little" check would do wonders. But that would drop engagement with the bots, and they desperately need to prove that the bots are popular. This is going to keep happening.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago

    AI is a drug that destroys communities and tears families apart. It is only capable of securing incredible injustice.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    So, yes, fuck chatgpt. However, these people already suffered from delusions of grandeur. Both of them. Their weird ass "housing project" was already non-sense dreamed up by imbeciles who dont understand what is going on around them. so like, fuck chatgpt, but let's talk about the human problem. why do so many dumb-as-shit people think they are going to be the next big thing? I could muse on about half a dozen theories, but it seems to circle back to just being deeply incapable of critical thought. Attempting to create sustainable housing by relying on an unsustainable ai is so profoundly ignorant and just so fucking stupid.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago

    The richest man on earth is the cringiest imbecile, I can see why others want to emulate him. Unfortunately for them, they did not get born with emerald money, double unfortunate for them that they are also stupid

  • source
  • parent
  • 2 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 9 points 8 months ago*

    I'm no mental health professional, but I theorize that ChatGPT is not entirely to blame for this. These people are victims of a greater mental health epidemic. Perhaps this is just a symptom of societal social collapse, and AI is a band-aid. There is individual nuance to this as well. It's tragic what happened to Ceccanti. It didn't have to end that way.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    This one specifically is Fuck Sam Altman. One tier below Thiel and Epstein on the ladder of evil.

  • source