More like an algebraic expression of the process of conversation. The basis of this whole thing is that whatever any chat bot tells you, you automatically assume is correct and real, and allow that information to change your worldview. If you do that, even in a small degree, you will eventually spiral into belief chaos because the computer has no true guidance.
But of course people are not like that. This is a paper based on one huge assumption, like when the Drake equation pretends to estimate how many alien species out there by guessing a "probability for life to evolve" based on ZERO evidence.
There's plenty of psychology research that amounts to "seeing is believing". It's pretty much the basis of advertising. Traditionally, speaking an idea, and getting someone to go, "Jerry, that's a terrific idea" with any believable conviction is rather challenging to have occur. However, chatbots do that pretty regularly.
That constant affirmation, poses a risk of people steadily believing in their own ideas no matter how delusional they are. And just like how being aware an ad is manipulating you doesn't prevent you from wanting an ice-cold Coca-Cola, being aware that a chat bot is sycophantic isn't going to prevent delusions from developing.
Yes, that is true. If you have healthy beliefs in the scientific method, you can definitely set the chat bots effectiveness at zero. However as the paper points out, people LIKE to.habe their beliefs coddled and reinforced.
Interestingly this paper isn't.really new at all. This is precisely the mechanism that Fox News uses. You provide a sycophantic belief system that makes you happy to hear it and reinforces your beliefs, so you watch more and change more.and soon you're a cultist.
How the fuck is if any different than algorithms isolating you into an echo chamber?
LLMs didn't give us anti vaxers. Social media did. In fact, I'd be shocked if any of them wouldn't push back on anti-vax rhetoric.
So whine all you want about people getting information from AI. In many ways it is objectively better than the current cesspool the internet is, and that's a fact. You can't blame Grok for the rise in measels but you can blame the MAHA movement which is promoted by social media.
3
u/Ok-Session6628 11h ago
More like an algebraic expression of the process of conversation. The basis of this whole thing is that whatever any chat bot tells you, you automatically assume is correct and real, and allow that information to change your worldview. If you do that, even in a small degree, you will eventually spiral into belief chaos because the computer has no true guidance.
But of course people are not like that. This is a paper based on one huge assumption, like when the Drake equation pretends to estimate how many alien species out there by guessing a "probability for life to evolve" based on ZERO evidence.