Greed is a symptom of possibly many mental conditions. You’re all over the place. All these things you’re arguing against are well established ideas, both in common experience and the psychological community.
That’s potato/potahto when it comes to mental illness. Without the tendency, it won’t develop. AI, because it embodies the potential to replace workers, accelerates the whole process. Making management not just look more psychotic, but become more psychotic, or at least be further down the path.
Because you can’t be horrible to others without feeling bad, no matter who you are. And how well you feel factors intimately into the intensity of mental illness.
“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 pushes them over the edge”
Which is exactly what hallucinating someone into psychosis means.
angband@lemmy.world 5 days ago
…substack.com/…/the-neuroscience-of-greed
Greed is a symptom of possibly many mental conditions. You’re all over the place. All these things you’re arguing against are well established ideas, both in common experience and the psychological community.
You also seem to be using darvo.
Gap@lemmy.world 5 days ago
What is darvo?
angband@lemmy.world 5 days ago
That’s potato/potahto when it comes to mental illness. Without the tendency, it won’t develop. AI, because it embodies the potential to replace workers, accelerates the whole process. Making management not just look more psychotic, but become more psychotic, or at least be further down the path.
Because you can’t be horrible to others without feeling bad, no matter who you are. And how well you feel factors intimately into the intensity of mental illness.
Gap@lemmy.world 3 days ago
“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 pushes them over the edge”
Which is exactly what hallucinating someone into psychosis means.
Why are you defending AI?