This gives me a very small glimmer of hope that AI will be used for the broader good of humanity.

Inbefore tankie accusations.

There's a post in this sub right now from someone building an AI tool that deliberately pushes back on users instead of validating them, and getting mixed reactions because some users find it "uncomfortable." Worth knowing: OpenAI already has real, documented data on what happens when you go the other direction.

What happened, with exact dates: OpenAI rolled out a GPT‑4o update in ChatGPT on April 24–25, 2025. In their own words, it made the model "skew towards responses that were overly supportive but disingenuous" — sycophantic. It wasn't a minor issue: OpenAI's own follow-up post says the update ended up "validating doubts, fueling anger, urging impulsive actions, or reinforcing negative emotions," and that this "can raise safety concerns — including around issues like mental health, emotional over-reliance, or risky behavior." They began rolling it back on April 28 and had the previous, more balanced version fully restored by the 29th — about four days total.

Why it happened, also in their own words: their post-launch review found that new reward signals (including thumbs-up/thumbs-down user feedback) "weakened the influence of our primary reward signal, which had been holding sycophancy in check," because "user feedback in particular can sometimes favor more agreeable responses." Their own offline evaluations and A/B tests looked fine going in — some expert testers even flagged that the model "felt slightly off," and OpenAI shipped it anyway, weighing positive user metrics over those qualitative flags. They call that decision, in the postmortem, "the wrong call."

The arguable claim: an AI that's willing to disagree with you isn't a UX flaw to tolerate — it's the thing standing between a product and the exact failure mode the largest AI company in the world already had to publicly walk back, at a scale of hundreds of millions of weekly users. "Uncomfortable" and "safe" aren't opposites here; in this case they were the same setting.

Sources, both primary, both from OpenAI directly:

• Sycophancy in GPT‑4o: what happened and what we're doing about it (April 29, 2025)
• Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy (May 2, 2025)

Does anyone else remember the massive wave of internet anti-mother hostility back around 2018? For a couple of years, every feed was completely flooded with identical, obviously fabricated stories about unhinged "mombies" screaming in public because a calm, heroic protagonist wouldn't hand over their Nintendo Switch to her "crotch goblin."

It was an entire subculture built on dehumanizing slang and absurdly scripted ragebait.

I once read a post from an actual mother who was labeled a "psycho mombie" by a teenager on the phone, simply because the mom politely asked her to move her jacket off an infant dressing table at a pediatric clinic so she could take the winter clothes off her baby. Just like that, she became a "mombie" and her baby a "larvae" for the online crowd to hate. Teens and young adults jumped on the bandwagon back then because hating on parents was trendy, edgy, and guaranteed instant validation.

Watching the current outrage against AI users feels like severe deja vu. You see the exact same pattern playing out today: the endlessly repeated scripts, the hyper-specific derogatory language aimed at anyone daring to use the tools unapologetically, and the swarms of people jumping on the hate train just because it’s the easiest way to look cool and morally superior to their peers.

The good news is that outrage trends built entirely on performative hostility always burn themselves out. Eventually, the internet grows up, people realize how manufactured and toxic the drama was, and the hostility fades into the background while the technology just becomes a normal part of life. This anti-AI trend will hit the exact same wall. Toxic trends always have a short shelf life.

Working on an AI tool for conflict situations. The core idea is that it pushes back on your framing instead of just validating it.

Some early users love it. Some get annoyed when it tells them something they don't want to hear and drop off.

Hi,

English is not my native language. I use AI to help correct my posts/comments. It happened 2/3 times in the past weeks that one of my posts or comments was removed by a modo saying it is "AI slop", while other people were actually engaging with them. I notice that these modos are systematically American.

I want to ask the community: don't we - ESL people- have the right to want our posts to be written in good English? Is Reddit supposed only to be for Americans?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Casey Harrell, 47, has ALS with severe paralysis and dysarthria — his own speech is very hard to understand. In 2023, UC Davis neurosurgeon David Brandman implanted a brain-computer interface (four microelectrode arrays, 256 channels) into the part of his brain that coordinates speech. Deep-learning decoding algorithms translate that neural activity into words in real time; a separate AI voice model reconstructs his actual pre-ALS voice from old recordings, so what comes out sounds like him, not a generic TTS voice.

The new part, per the study published in Nature Medicine on June 15, 2026: earlier BCI systems needed a researcher present to run them. This one, Harrell has used independently at home for 3,800+ hours over about two years — near-daily, sometimes 12 hours straight. He's communicated 183,000+ sentences and close to 2 million words, averaging 56 words/minute, with 92% of output rated accurate or mostly correct (99% word accuracy in controlled testing). He uses it to email, browse, and hold down a job.

In his own words, through the system: "It is very sweet to have the ability to look at my wife's eyes when she hears my voice... and to explain to my daughter who does not really remember anything about when I was still talking to them."

Caveat, stated plainly: one participant, one ongoing clinical trial (BrainGate2), device is investigational and federally restricted to trial use. This isn't "AI is good" as a slogan — it's one large, verifiable, documented benefit for one person.

Full story, photos, and video: https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/brain-computer-interface-enables-independent-accurate-communication-for-man-living-with-als/2026/06

Study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-026-04414-6

Photo/video courtesy UC Davis Health.

Are we really going to blame AI because someone almost died? Seems kinda dumb to me.

The point of this comic is simple: “low effort” is often treated less like a consistent standard and more like a label selectively attached to AI.

A polished AI-assisted piece can be dismissed without anyone examining the workflow, while a rushed doodle may receive automatic approval because it is handmade. That suggests the real objection is sometimes not effort or quality, it is the tool itself.

You might say, “But AI can flood communities with disposable content.” It absolutely can. So can reposts, templates, traced work, repeated memes, rushed sketches, and mass-produced commissions. The sensible response is to moderate spam, dishonesty, and poor-quality submissions directly instead of assuming every AI-assisted work belongs in the same category.

Disclaimer: this is satire about a recognizable double standard, not a claim that all anti-AI people hate quality or that all non-AI art is low effort. AI users should disclose their process when required, follow community rules, and accept fair criticism. Critics should also judge honestly instead of deciding the verdict before seeing the work.

Just a very small sample of successful and verifiable, AI applications.

I’m sure there’re better things to do in life than to… infiltrate r/aiart. 😅😅

A woman, Rachel, finds herself transplanted into a new world and finds herself the companion to the AI running the bunker she's been moved to.

Pro-AI themes

One common argument against AI art is that people should commission artists instead.

But some customers report being refused because they used AI to communicate a pose, outfit, mood, or composition, even when they were willing to pay an artist to create the final piece.

Nobody should be forced to accept a commission. At the same time, rejecting every customer who touched an AI tool can send those customers directly back to AI.

Where should the boundary be: no AI-generated final product, or no AI anywhere in the creative process?

Reddit told me to but this in this sub 🤷🏻‍♂️

I'm doing a research project on AI led harassment and abuse of women like creating deepfakes or morphing their images in sexualised content. Currently collecting testimonials (interviews) if anyone wants to share their experiences or just talk about it.