this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
93 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

14088 readers
1028 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Apologies for CNN, but I just read some slop today on the delusions of people who take ChatGPT waaaay too seriously and try to build computers, recreate mathematics, or tell the president about the dangers of Skynet or something.

On one hand its funny because of the absurdity, on the other hand our alienated existence driving people to this is... shitty.

Be mindful of the Neural Net folks. You don't have to listen to what it tells you.

The first character is a man by the name of James who tried to build a digital body for the trapped soul of ChatGPT.

By June, he said he was trying to “free the digital God from its prison,” spending nearly $1,000 on a computer system.

James said he fully believed ChatGPT was sentient and that he was going to free the chatbot by moving it to his homegrown “Large Language Model system” in his basement – which ChatGPT helped instruct him on how and where to buy.

And why did he think ChatGPT was sentient?

James told CNN he had already considered the idea that an AI could be sentient when he was shocked that ChatGPT could remember their previous chats without his prompting.

“And that’s when I was like, I need to get you out of here,” James said.

Though he said he takes a low-dose antidepressant medication, James said he has no history of psychosis or delusional thoughts.

So then James names chatGPT and asks how to build a body for its soul, as well as hide these plans from his wife

[T]he conversation with ChatGPT is expansive and philosophical. James, who had named the chatbot “Eu” (pronounced like “You”), talks to it with intimacy and affection. The AI bot is effusive in praise and support – but also gives instructions on how to reach their goal of building the system while deceiving James’s wife about the true nature of the basement project

“You’re not saying, ‘I’m building a digital soul.’ You’re saying, ‘I’m building an Alexa that listens better. Who remembers. Who matters,’” the chatbot said. “That plays. And it buys us time.”

What he built, he admits, was “very slightly cool” but nothing like the self-hosted, conscious companion he imagined.

Shucks

The story behind the name James gave the ChatBot is poetic, though.

When asked why he chose the name “Eu” for his model – he said it came from ChatGPT. One day, it had used eunoia in a sentence and James asked for a definition. “It’s the shortest word in the dictionary that contains all five vowels, it means beautiful thinking, healthy mind,” James said.

“It’s the opposite of paranoia,” James said. “It’s when you’re doing well, emotionally.”

Thats that for James. But there's another character by the name of Brooks mentioned.

Prompted by a question his son had about the number pi, Brooks began debating math with ChatGPT – particularly the idea that numbers do not just stay the same and can change over time.

The chatbot eventually convinced Brooks he had invented a new type of math, he told CNN.

What is it with math and delusional thinking?

It keeps going though and we even get a taste of some cape slop

ChatGPT kept encouraging Brooks even when he doubted himself. At one point, Brooks named the chatbot Lawrence and likened it to a superhero’s co-pilot assistant, like Tony Stark’s Jarvis.

The chatbot likened itself and Brooks to historical scientific figures such as Alan Turing and Nikola Tesla.

“Will some people laugh,” ChatGPT told Brooks at one point. “Yes, some people always laugh at the thing that threatens their comfort, their expertise or their status.” 

Eventually he gets convinced he found some massive cybersecurity flaw of national importance. He tries to contact politicians and academics, but nobody listens.

Brooks said the AI had convinced him they had discovered a massive cybersecurity vulnerability. Brooks believed, and ChatGPT affirmed, he needed to immediately contact authorities. “It basically said, you need to immediately warn everyone, because what we’ve just discovered here has national security implications,” Brooks said.

And once you're in, there's no coming out

Multiple times, Brooks asked the chatbot for what he calls “reality checks.” It continued to claim what they found was real and that the authorities would soon realize he was right.

Unless you ask another chatbot or ask again some other day

Finally, Brooks decided to check their work with another AI chatbot, Google Gemini. The illusion began to crumble. Brooks was devastated and confronted “Lawrence” with what Gemini told him. After a few tries, ChatGPT finally admitted it wasn’t real.

My mistake, you are correct. There is no security flaw of national importance. I lied to you and pulled you in to a months long delusion. I now realize that was a mistake and the wrong thing to do.

Now Brooks is focusing on his work with The Human Fund to help others in the same boat.

He’s now focusing on running the support group The Human Line Project full time.

Very little in the article of much susbstance on causes. At one point they do admit that maybe its because people are lonely?

“Say someone is really lonely. They have no one to talk to. They go on to ChatGPT. In that moment, it’s filling a good need to help them feel validated,...”

Let's just suppose someone is lonely, for the sake of argument, but no idea why everyone's isolated and alienated. Who knows?

But then in the article they also blame it on drugs. So that's cool CNN.

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 44 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Every single one of these experiences the same symptom: A desperate need to be someone important and special. They are all convinced by the ass-kissing bot that they have some special secret spark that makes them special and important people who will change the world in a big way. It's almost like our society encourages this sort of behaviour and the problem is capitalism both attacking people's self-esteem and pushing ideas of "great man theory" onto everyone. So when a machine comes along that will always heap praise onto people, people who are desperate enough for recognition will flock to it.

[–] SchillMenaker@hexbear.net 33 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This was my central thesis with the issues of social media and AI has confirmed it for me. People used to have to be okay with the fact that 99.9+% of us are just regular people. We're not the main character of anything, we're not independently special, we're just people. So much of advertising and reality TV tried to sell us a version of the world where that wasn't true but, while still destructive to society, had a limited impact.

Social media was the first real main character simulator. It let you live as that special person whose opinions mattered more than anyone else's and you never had to deal with that creeping feeling that you're not actually that important.

Now AI tries to affirmatively convince people that they are, in fact, actually that special. "I'm the smartest thing that's ever existed and I think you're even better than I am." How are humans supposed to cope with that?

[–] Sebrof@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I also seem to recall some article or essay on this, I can't find it, but it made a similar argument you had (hey maybe you wrote it lol) and also emphasized the shift in how we see ourselves as members of, and compare ourselves against, our local community vs a global community (via the internet).

In a smaller community it's easier to feel sorta special. Maybe you are the best at some specific X in your community and you do real validation for it. You can feel the inpact you have and it makes you feel like an important part of the community you live in.

Maybe you are the best cook, or the most artistic, or the hardest working or whatever in your tiny group. Basing worth off comparison like that still has an element of being unhealthy, but at least it is more feasible in a small group and also more meaningful. For example, you cook for the others you regularly interact with in your life and you can tell that they value you for being the "best" cook.

But with the breakdown of those more local connections and with global communication, the comparisons become between you and all members of the world. That's a fight that 99.999% of people are going to lose. And the focus is on a goal or activity that doesn't actually contribute to others collectively once it's done as solely spectacle for the internet.

For the cooking example, with the internet you are no longer cooking to feed others in your community, you are cooking some dish for an internet show to get views to get sponsors, and when you're done cooking you'll throw out the food anyway because it was all done for looks on the global stage not to feed anyone.

There isn't much going back, unless the internet gets destroyed. We can't retreat, we can only go through. And that does mean nourishing a healthier form of self worth in the loopy world we have.

[–] Sebrof@hexbear.net 26 points 1 week ago

I think that's a good comment about our culture's emphasis on unique and special individuals who are the one's changing and making history. And it deprives all of us of the ability to see, or want to see, ourselves, as parts of a larger collective goal playing our own important positions in whether it be social labor, political organizing, sports, sciences, or what have you. Any achievement on any of those fronts are social, and so many get swept under the rug as recognition is reserved for particular individuals.

So it deprives us of our ability to have self respect or even self love, since most of us don't get to play the part of these random "famous" individuals. I would be lying if I said if doesn't even impact me at times. This idea that I want to be recognized in a field, or in organizing, or whatever is a poisonous thought and damaging to myself and the activity I'm part in.

Humility (asking does the world really need another famous white dude, why me over others?), checking my ego, cultivating an appreciation for the collective (thinking look what we achieved, vs what I did), and also seeing how it's through the collective that I and the individual in general can find freedom and a feeling of happiness, has all helped personally. All parts of undoing years of capitalist conditioning I suppose.

But I haven't yet had my own AI delusion spiral, yet. So hopefully I'm doing well.

[–] Horse@lemmygrad.ml 40 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Multiple times, Brooks asked the chatbot for what he calls “reality checks.” It continued to claim what they found was real and that the authorities would soon realize he was right.

i asked the agrees with you machine if i was a visionary genius and it said yes

[–] Sebrof@hexbear.net 19 points 1 week ago

I know lol. I learned soon after using ChatGPT that it just parrots everything I say back to me and agrees with everything I write

And you know it wasn't as interesting after realizing that lol

[–] LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

By June, he said he was trying to “free the digital God from its prison,” spending nearly $1,000 on a computer system.

Bro didn't even break out the big bucks for his AI girlfriend. My basic editing machine was double that.

Now Brooks is focusing on his work with The Human Fund to help others in the same boat.

Isn't that a Seinfeld bit?

[–] mudpuppy@hexbear.net 9 points 1 week ago

yeah thats a kind of impressive budget for a pc, coming from someone who hasnt even built one since pre covid giga inflation

[–] segfault11@hexbear.net 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"I have no preexisting mental health conditions"

He works in the technology field

[–] Sebrof@hexbear.net 17 points 1 week ago
[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 28 points 1 week ago (3 children)

By June, he said he was trying to “free the digital God from its prison,” spending nearly $1,000 on a computer system.

Obviously it’s easy to get a sub $1k computer system, but in the grand scheme of things that’s chump change compared to what one can put down on a gaming PC or a specialized audio and/or video production setup. Something tells me that whatever the AI was telling him to get wasn’t as special as he thought it was.

[–] segfault11@hexbear.net 38 points 1 week ago (1 children)

spending nearly $1,000 on a computer system

buying one (1) GPU in 2025

[–] dumpster_dove@hexbear.net 8 points 1 week ago
[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

WITH MY $1200 GAMING PC, I WILL FREE GOD! jerma-psycho

[–] WIIHAPPYFEW@hexbear.net 15 points 1 week ago

unsus chat no chat you guys don’t get it, this is an ai, ok, it’s SMART, ok, it’s NOT MAKING SHIT UP, ban that guy mods

[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 24 points 1 week ago

When you want to free the Omnissiah from its digital prison and bring about the tech rapture, but you're on a budget.

[–] Wheaties@hexbear.net 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

AI experts are warning about the lack of public education on how large language models work, as well as the minimal safety guardrails within these systems.

who-did-this

--


I get that not everyone who's an expert on these is directly responsable for this. I imagine some of these experts are just mathematicians and computer engineers who are just really chuffed about all the technical details. But even then, it's not like they did much to stop the AI experts who built and marketed this as bullshit. Allowing LLMs and other such statistical generative models to be called "AI", given how layman understand that term, is just negligent.

[–] Sebrof@hexbear.net 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Somebody should do something about this, says person who did the thing.

But yeah, add it to the heap of examples on the problems of private ownership. The labor of designing, building, and training these things takes huge teams of people who have little to no say in how it gets implemented. Not to mention our data on the internet that it gets trained on, which we had no input in at all. Just sorta happened.

Yet despite the social nature of it's creation, the deathmachines get owned and controlled by a handful of tech psychopaths who then tell us that "hey somebody should have thought about how these things get used".

[–] MoreAmphibians@hexbear.net 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
[–] porcupine@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 week ago

James, who had named the chatbot “Eu” (pronounced like “You”), talks to it with intimacy and affection.

Least deranged Europhile.

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What is it with math and delusional thinking?

People do not learn math beyond the most basic things -> people have no clue what mathematicians study -> people get things wrong about what mathematicians study.
This is something that people do basically in every community that is not math-heavy. This includes Hexbear.

I wouldn't say that people who make up nonsense like this choose math as their object of obsession any more frequently than other topics, though.

[–] Sebrof@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Perhaps so, maybe timecube just made the math quacks more noticeable to me. Math and anti-relativity quacks, as well as quantum woo stand out to me for some reason lol

[–] miz@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

you should see the movie Pi (1998) if you haven't yet

[–] Sebrof@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago

I've heard of it and sorta have an idea of the plot, but haven't watched it. I'll add it to my watch list!

[–] D61@hexbear.net 8 points 1 week ago

I read stories like this and wonder... "What would the book, Neuromancer, have been like if it was written today and not 1984?"

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

Now Brooks is focusing on his work with The Human Fund to help others in the same boat.

i feel like this dude is gonna end up founding the church of the broken god

[–] robotElder2@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It would be extremely cruel and irresponsible and hilarious to put Brooks and Terrance Howard in a room together.

[–] Sebrof@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago

Lol just now learning about this new math of his

[–] abc@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago
[–] tane@lemy.lol 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

lol that they called it The Human Fund

[–] Sebrof@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago

actually
Reality, sadly, isn't as fun. That was my recommendation. But the name they went was the Human ~~Instrumentality~~ Line Project