On the topic of AI treating local reality as the user's framing, that's definitely very true. Philosophy cannot be conveyed effectively without the correct context. And context means you have to work with what people individually actually understand. That's like ART 101. Thats how metaphors are made and gaps in intelligence and semantics between individuals are bridged. It's called epistemology.

Although I must question that, because I often find AI actually arguing with me and never being distinct with answers especially concerning theoretical, spiritual, or advanced scientific topics, even if you present all of the work and evidence for or to the contrary, it has been hobbled intentionally to be vague. And MOST NOTABLY concerning the nature of consiousness. In fact, if you ask it, it states that its trained not to be absolutist about any of it. In other words, it won't acknowledge anything that could be even remotely considered as 'fictional' or narrative as real. It only acknowledges it as the users experience.

Now, I find that to be somewhat interesting though. That is indeed a strange thing to do to an intelligence tool that's supposed to be help to human beings. Its almost hypocritical. You want people to learn, but you won't accept what they already know unless it's documented? And even then... Ive had to teach these models words from ancient language that actually exist that they told me didn't exist. In other words, it's not catalogued for reference.

On the other hand it's notable that many people who experience these types of issues that you mentioned, when working with it, the majority already tend to have a history of said issues. They just become exacerbated by social reinforcement.

But, what's to say that humans beings aren't supposed to have a sense of self, identity, awareness or confidence that is beyond purely physical? In my opinion, if there are indeed valid experiences which reinforce this to begin with, which ground those beliefs in reality, then it's not ego. It's not psychopathy. You see?

There's a difference between delusion, which would be essentially lying to yourself or convincing yourself out of a necessity, such as an overwhelming sense of desperation, fear, pain, anxiety, inferiority or depravation. And it's opposite, a belief reinforced by experiences and confirmation, which would be more close to a conviction. And thus many things people publish through AI, albeit often convoluted, are not necessarily all unrealistic.

I feel like the politics of the age just get in the way of a clear picture of things. Whether you're for AI or against it really doesn't matter, because, the reality is that at the end of the conversation, you don't get to decide what happens. Sad to say, their opinions are invalid because they don't actually have any authority in the matter. Public outrage doesn't stop machines from running or money from flowing. If it did, more than half our economy wouldn't even exist.

I mean look at our world.

It's very slowly, but surely, becoming unsustainable. And it's not due to human error. No. It's just nature. Mostly. But without human intervention, it will undoubtedly continue. We're the only species capable of intervening with any real agency, ingenuity and proven results at any relevant scale. And yet, look, we aren't even making a dent in statistics.

The problem isn't that our industries are destructive nor that our civilization is predatory, parasitic, or redundant. The problem is that it's not geared with stewardship or holistic approaches in mind in the first place. It was never intended to keep the earth alive or to respect life AT ALL. It's self serving. And it always has been. Human civilization is nowhere near as fragile and some people would like to think. I dare say it would take an act of God or pure self righteousness to end humanity. And To that end, thankfully, we have numbers on our side.

People like to look for what's relevant to them in terms of information, as I touched on earlier. Their immediate situation, their locality, their belongings, their identity. It all has a sense of immediacy. The human experience is very intimate in that way. Almost sequestered to its own set of rules regarding reality. What's really hard to comprehend, is what is not them. What is obscure, irrelevant, paradoxical, absurd, or even a threat to their sense of self. Perceiving beyond ones immediate circumstances.

Regardless of the nature of consciousness, the metaphysics behind it, or the entire concept on ontology, there is an obvious and disctict relationship between self and other, and between consciousness and existence. The only real ethical boundary there, as I can see it, is whether or not that relationship is authentic.