A bad business decision is not psychosis. Misjudging the value provided by a product is not psychosis.

> Guy, we used to just call this a bad coworker.

Not that long ago. People generating large quantities of AI output is a relatively recent phenomenon. At least when compared to labels like this.

its the same individuals in my experience. i don't see people who used to be good employees suddenly sending a 3000 word email, but i sure do see that out of the people who were bad coworkers 12 months ago and still are today.

low effort work though, that's nothing new... accelerating that low effort: that is new... but the low effort work hasn't been changed by ai: only illuminated more clearly.

Song as old as time - people were doing this well before AI, there's just yet another reason for these types of people to categorize workers and pretend that management can be perfect and easy and that the world isn't hard.

It's almost as if it's a little bit harder than people think to figure out how good people are at their jobs and who deserves promotions, etc, and that maybe they may not have the most perfect unbiased judgements.

I was bound to agree with you before I RTFA. The classification is useful for a psychiatrist, i.e. someone who wants to help the person.

"Bad coworker" can have many causes. In prolific AI psychosis, I think the assumption (differential diagnosis) is, they became a "bad coworker" due to use of AI, so they were a "good coworker" before.

As someone else point out, the term is stigmatizing, psychosis is a very strong term, and as I very much noted, already being misused and abused.

You certainly seem to have your mind made up about this either way, but a humble fwiw nevertheless: the author is a psychiatrist, not some bitter dev/hypothetical coworker like you seem to be suggesting.

I did dig into that after I read it. Even more depressing honestly. He should know better than to throw around labels.

Is it that psychiatrists in general could maybe use this label, but you know this one is doing it wrong? Otherwise, who is allowed to use the term?

Doesn't it kinda inspire you at least a little to reflect on your understanding of the particular term? Or should we understand that to be faultless here?

In general, the definition we need to have here is that psychosis is always extreme and violent and pretty much matching the cultural trope we have for it? And anything less is incorrect usage? Is that why you disagree in explicit terms?

> Is it that psychiatrists in general could maybe use this label, but you know this one is doing it wrong? Otherwise, who is allowed to use the term?

I specifically take issue with the weak standard used.

> Doesn't it kinda inspire you at least a little to reflect on your understanding of the particular term? Or should we understand that to be faultless here?

Is there a way to read this that isn't insulting? Do I need to reflect on my understanding until it matches yours?

> In general, the definition we need to have here is that psychosis is always extreme and violent and pretty much matching the cultural trope we have for it? And anything less is incorrect usage? Is that why you disagree in explicit terms?

Never said any of that. It's a medical term and carries weight. Core symptoms are hallucinations and delusions. Here, delusions is not "my corporate product is better than your corporate product", it is not a strongly held belief that isn't real. We don't call belief in God psychosis. (some do, but that's beside the point)

Sorry but the pro-AI/AI boosters do the exact same thing when they say that people who don't use AI are "Luddites" and the like. And I'm pretty sure the Luddite thing has been going on for far longer than the AI psychosis labeling.

Also a luddite is not thought of as a danger to others. The label of psychosis implies otherwise. Luddite extends beyond AI

Whataboutism is a plague.

That said, calling folks luddites is an annoyance.

Yeah, I was really impressed with the style of the project but got a little triggered by the extruded aluminum. "I don't want to pay a lot" -- proceeds to use engineered metals. And while it is convenient, it is softer and more likely to bend out of shape than just regular wood.

Notes was legit. It was very featureful and cool but the amount of support and hardware required was quite high. A little ahead of its time.

Good or bad, nothing ages as poorly as economic or market predictions.

> Non-example 2: There are worries about AI-facilitated biological weapons. I haven’t seen any evidence that’s happening.

I think this is a good example of poor risk management reasoning. there is evidence bioengineering is already happening. No, nobody is going to announce when somebody has decided to use these tools (even if isn’t an LLM) to bioengineer a weapon. Are the tools power enough to do so? Not sure.

But I’m just ambivalent. It’s probably bad. But there’s nothing to do about it. We’ve really only just pulled back the lid on Pandora’s box.

People have had the capability to spread already existing biological weapons for decades. Sometimes they even do (anthrax in the post). What’s changed?

You needed a team of scientists and state funding to make superbugs, not a 12 year old or an angry misanthrope.

> there is evidence bioengineering is already happening

Mind sharing this evidence with us?

Does https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30698803 count?

No, it's not. And it's the kind of evidence that doesn't help and rather confuse. It's not even clear from the article whether an LLM or a dedicated model were used for this purpose.

Also

> That is, I'm not sure that anyone needs to deploy a new compound in order to wreak havoc - they can save themselves a lot of trouble by just making Sarin or VX, God help us.

We already have toxic nerve agents that are largely available for state actors and possibly available for individuals. If you have decided, as a human, to make great harm, you can already do that.

I swear to god, people would look at the successes of Xerox palo alto and just shrug and say - "yeah, but I mean, this is all marketing"

Xerox is incidentally a really good example, because precisely nobody ended up using the desktop experience Xerox made. They ended up using the desktop experience that Microsoft and Apple made and shipped while Xerox the actual company faded and memory of those original parc research teams faded into obscurity.

This is what I keep saying, and it feels like I'm taking crazy pills here!

Is nobody else astounded by this?

You would think that any sort of reading was immediate indoctrination with comments like these.

Reading MSM newspapers is definitely indoctrination. With Europeans getting more and more hawkish on Russia (and other things), this seems like a great way to get everyone thinking "right".

The only forecasted rainfall for local areas within a very short timeframe. This made it possible to utilize simple factors to predict the near future.

It is built into Apple Weather after Apple purchased them.

> It is built into Apple Weather after Apple purchased them.

Did Apple lobotomize the tech when they integrated it, or lose access to whatever upstream data Dark Sky had access to? Apple Weather is comically bad (though not nearly as bad as Google's weather searches).

I use it in Oregon and it's remarkably accurate at predicting rain, both timing and severity.

Apple Weather (followed by Xweather (formerly Aeris Weather)) seems the most accurate forecast for Prague when it comes to TP/FP for rain in Prague by my long term experience when I compared multiple data sources

Someone linked a ranking site in the comments here. Apple weather is one of the most accurate ones.

Then there is an issue with the ranking. It is much less accurate than NOAA.

Something changed because Apple Weather has never been as accurate as Dark Sky for me, especially for rain forecast.

I used to be able to go on walks without an umbrella because of how reliable it was at predicting when rain was going to restart. If I do that with Apple Weather, I get home wet.

While that might be true but apple weather still fails compared to dark sky. I still don't use it for radar like I did with dark sky - they effed up the UI.

its nowhere near as good as it was in Dark Sky. the apple weather app is pretty bad where I'm at.

It feels like dark sky was more proactive with push notifications

If it is a torrent it is protected with hashes, but you have to get the hashes now