return2ozmaHuge Study of Chats Between Delusional Users and AI Finds Alarming Patterns
Snot FlickermanHuge Study
*Looks inside
this latest study examined the chat logs of 19 real users of chatbots — primarily OpenAI’s ChatGPT — who reported experiencing psychological harm as a result of their chatbot use.
Pretty small sample size despite being a large dataset that they pulled from, its still the dataset of just 19 people.
AI sucks in a lot of ways sure, but this feels like fud.
InternetCitizen2I remember reading my old states book that said a minimum of 30 points needed for normal distribution. Also typically these small sets about proof of concept, so yeah you still got a point.
BuddahrifficIt’s about 300 samples for an estimate of the distribution with a 95% confidence iirc. That’s assuming the samples are representative (unbiased) and 95% confidence doesn’t mean it’s within 95% of reality, but that 5% of tests run in such a way would be expected to be inaccurate (and there’s no way of knowing for sure which one this particular sample is because even a meta study will have such an error rate, though you can increase the confidence with more samples or studies, just never to 100% unless you study every possible sample, including future ones).
That doesn’t make sense. What if your population is only 100?
Then any statistics you measure on that population might be fully accurate for those 100 but might be less able to predict what the next 100 will look like.
You can still measure stats with smaller groups, it just means the confidence interval is smaller. With 300, there’s a 95% chance your test results are close to reality. With 100 it might be more like 66%.
Population is a statistical term which means “everything”. There is no “next 100”.
The 300 number is specifically about very big populations where you’re trying to measure something like an average of an unknown variable. It doesn’t apply to just anything statistics.
I meant like births, as in even if you can enumerate every single individual, statistics can apply to future members that don’t yet exist.
And yeah, it’s been a while and I remembered that the proof didn’t depend on the population size but forgot that it assumed a large population size in the first place. I was wrong.
UnderpantsWeevilI wonder if the headline was written by an AI
…fud?
It’s crypto bro speak.
What? The term FUD has been around since at least the 90s, though I think significantly older than that
thisbenzingringMicrosoft are masters of it, their whole business plan is dependent on it
MinnesotaGoddamand yet it doesn’t stop being their jargon
wonderingwandererThe also use the words “the,” “at,” “is,” and “it,” but that doesn’t make it their jargon.
We really need to stop condemning entire words just because some people we don’t like used them…
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been accused of using a “dogwhistle” because I used a totally innocuous word in accordance with its literal meaning without having any idea that it’s apparently been co-opted by some group of hate-filled extremists because I don’t follow those groups and I don’t know their lingo…
Like, soon we won’t have any words left that we’re still allowed to use. Language is already getting dumbed down, and I’m tired of walking on eggshells lest I say a word that could potentially be misinterpreted in light of a vague association to a different term that has a double-entendre that some niche circles use in some reprehensible way in their ostensibly secret code, or that I didn’t know was a euphemism…
it’s not exclusively their jargon, but it is their jargon.
I’m not arguing with you, at what point did I claim you said anything that I disagree with?
I was just using your comment as a springboard
sorry, maybe i’m reading tone into your italics that isn’t there. tone over text is hard and i don’t sleep a lot.
It’s understandable. I was frustrated, and the italics were meant to express my frustration. I just didn’t intend for it to feel directed at you… my bad…
hey no worries
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say you probably don’t deserve it. I’ve seen your other comments and you seem conscientious, relatable, and like you’re doing the best you can just like the rest of us…
oh i’m not talking about here, just talking about life
Life is… brutal…
It doesn’t have to be. We humans are capable of being civilized, we’ve done it before. For a while I thought world peace was within our reach, at least in my lifetime, but now I’m not so sure…
Even on the smaller scale, people don’t have to be so cruel to each other. It’s a choice. A deeply-ingrained, generational pattern, maybe, but a choice to wake up each day and continue living in that inertia.
Of course, it takes more than an individual to break that tide. It’s a collective choice. But collective choices are just the sum of all the individual choices that reach critical mass…
I’m just absently philosophizing… don’t mean to blow smoke up your ass…
don’t mean to blow smoke up your ass…
Oh they tried that it doesn’t make the hole work any better
there are some really weird medical tests
It’s literally just sales speak. They also say coin all the time, and that doesn’t mean I can’t call something a coin without being associated with crypto bros.
i mean jargon can be a shibboleth
ORbituaryAre you unironically saying “fud”
porcoesphinoWhere are you hearing it so much?
Crypto bros are infamous for describing any criticism as FUD, no matter the criticism. It’s like a verbal tic. https://primal.net/search/FUD
When all this FUD ends and Bitcoin goes 🚀
Quantum FUD is at ATH
FUD Busters [NFT]
Flokicoin is built to last… Don’t follow the FUD.
A_norny_mousseThe term FUD has been around longer & broader than that. But thanks for the explanation.
I have no argument there, the word was not created like them, it’s just used so disproportionately by them.
They’ve also overused a bunch of ancient and unfunny memes them well past their expiration dates, and universally adopted a collection of depressingly dull and incorrect slogans. “FUD” is just the one that has interesting meaning outside their sad sphere.
Expecting someone who doesn’t follow cryptobro spaces to associate the term FUD with cryptobros and therefore stop using it is… kinda ignorant.
I agree with you, and hopefully my posts don’t come across like that’s what I believe. If anything, I’d prefer all phrases to be taken back from them.
I’m just trying to describe the other half of where different people see the word, and why they might come to different, incomplete conclusions.
You’re fine, it’s mostly fartmaster who’s making problematic overgeneralizations…
This is weirdly passive-aggressive. What are you trying to imply, that everyone who knows something you don’t like is bad, regardless of why?
Line Goes Up – The Problem With NFTs
If someone pitches you on a "great" Web3 project, ask them if it requires buying or selling crypto to do what they say it does.Sources and Further Readinghtt...
Rekall IncorporatedWhile I am aware that it’s a common crypto shill term, I think by this point crypto has fallen out of the mainstream, so their usage of terms doesn’t really matter.
And as others have pointed out, the term FUD has been used at least since the birth of WWW/modern internet.
The hugeness is probably
391, 562 messages across 4,761 different conversations
That’s a lot of messages
…and about 82 messages per conversation. Also, at least half of all the messages are from the user to the AI, and the other half are from the AI to the user, meaning around 41 messages from the user per conversation.
Thanks, you saved me a click 😐
Tell that to the advertizing companies.
How big do you think the population of people with AI delusion is? Why can’t 19 be a representative sample?
Why is that not enough to make statements like “after the user expresses romantic interest in the chatbot, the chatbot is 7.4x more likely to express romantic interest in the next three messages, and 3.9x more likely to claim or imply sentience in the next three messages.” when all 19 users expressed romantic interest?