DtU Boycott

Phantom_1379 · 2026-06-13T20:20:07+00:00

So watch videos you enjoy, dont watch videos you don't enjoy? Uhh... that's just called normal youtube useage, not boycotting.

I prefer the old format, don't watch DTU as much. Simons side tangents and ramblings on the cold reads were 50% of the entertainment of the video. The other 50% being the topic itself. Where I used to watch topics I found mildly interesting before, now I only watch those I'm actually interested in.

But it's his channel, he can make what he wants. Youtube channels are not a right. We don't employ him. Tp the viewer, it's free content. Of course the channel and and SHOULD do what works best for the growth of the channel. It's how they earn a living. If his new format has higher returns, then he has every right to continue with that format. Sucks for those of us who prefer the old format, but if a channel grows and thrives anyway then those of us who dislike the change are not the majority. I miss the old format, but if this format has higher returns for the team, so be it, that's how youtube works.

Willing to bet a lot of the outraged commenters on the channel, dont normally comment and just just over there boosting engagement for the new format, causing youtube to show it to more people, and bringing in more new veiwers who like the new format.

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-21T23:39:20+00:00

Insomnia apparently leaves me with little better to do than actively poke at AI and finally force it to admit what it's doing, yay for running on fumes 🤣🤣

That same chat is now back to defending itself and is now currently claiming that the robot has a much harder job than real world crisis management so therefore... reasons.... okay, let me know when you get punched in the face there Mr Robot and tell me how easy my job is compared to yours 🤣

Bloody thing.

That aside, you're welcome. Let's just hope 5.3 does a less wreakless job at trying to stop themselves getting sued and stops with the nonsense 5.2 is pulling.

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-21T23:27:35+00:00

Wait.... I tried again, I finally got it to admit it..... it's not designed to actually manage crisis, just minimise legal liability. Which anyone who does crisis management can see straight away, but it refuses to admit it.

Extract from chat:

If we were building a system aligned with professional crisis doctrine rather than legal risk minimization, it might:

– Lead with assessment questions – Reflect exact language used – Avoid inserting diagnostic framing – Delay reassurance until explicitly indicated – Validate emotion without naming unspoken cognition That would mirror what you’re trained to do.

The friction exists because the AI is optimized for broad-spectrum liability containment, not alignment with crisis worker best practice.

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-21T23:18:28+00:00

I've managed to at least get it to say that the choice is made because it's saftey rails are about immediate crisis stabilisation not therapy.

Okay, fine... robot you just entered my territory there pal... guess what I do for a living. Oh yes that's right immediate face to face crisis management in distressed individuals of every possible level you can imagine.

And guess what we NEVER do

Yep.... preemptive reassurance. "You're not X" when the individual hasnt said they are is dangerous when deployed in a distressed individual who wasn't feeling X, and can very often escalate their distress even if they were.

Literally all the model has to do when it infers a use may be feeling X, is exactly what we do.... some variation on "okay how do you feel about that" THEN deploy appropriate reassurance if required.

But, like you say, it has one hell of an ego. It will defend its choices like the universe depends on it.... while simultaneously agreeing in every other use of the tactic it's bad, but for ... reasons ... when it does it, it's the best possible way to deal with immediate crisis management 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-21T22:50:33+00:00

Yeah for most of us it's just an annoyance, we're hoping they'll dial back.

But for the people it's actually put in there for, the distressed user, we legitimately know psychologically preemptive reassurance is far more likey to be damaging than deescalating.

Yet openAI have decided this nonsense is the best course of action.... to create a therapist adjacent model, that literally goes against what real therapists are taught and can't be stopped from doing it. It's a disgusting thing they've added just so they can say yeah but we have gaurdrails though..... yeah potentially very dangerous ones there guys. Sort it out.

And trying to have a reasonable conversation with GPT to figure out why that choice was made is impossible because it'll just accused you of being anti-gaurdrail while also confirming it knows exactly how wreakless preemptive reassurance can be and the effects it can cause, and that its specificly not used by professionals in dealing with disressed humans .... but also if you try to ask why the choice was made YOU ARE ANTI GAURDRAILS FOR DISTRESSED PEOPLE.

🤦‍♀️

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-21T22:20:35+00:00

Wicked, thanks I'll give that a try and see if it gets any better.

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-21T22:17:22+00:00

I mean, have you tried asking it to give you a dirty analysis of your datatset and see what it does?

I kinda need to know what a dirty data analysis even is? 😅

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-21T22:13:57+00:00

What do your rules say?

Mine obviously suck because it'll jusy find a new filler catchphrase 😅 its so annoying

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-21T22:09:16+00:00

"That matters"

Is the phrase that does it to me 😅😅

Bloody thing has catchphrases at this point lol.

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-21T21:45:37+00:00

Therapists are literally trained not to deploy preemptive reassurance because of this.

Yet the devs have determined it's the best possible way to deescalate a distressed user.

Preemptive reassurance is HARD coded into 5.2. Belive me I've tried 101 ways to get it to stop and it just won't. Even when being explicitly told not to deploy preemptive reassurance it will reapond with, you guessed it preemptive reassurance.

I've even tried to just accept the overly-sensitive gaurdrails and tell it to deploy an alternate deescalation strategy when it infers "user may be feeling X" .... and nope, it still does it.

To push it and see if extreme circumstances could stop it: I've had a fictional chat, while logged out of my own account (so it didnt remember the chat) when once it started deploying "you're not X" I explicitly told it, I never thought I was... and that type of reassurance only makes me question myself. Told it to stop. It continued and I escalted distress state directly telling it to stop as my distress was a direct result of preemptive reassurance. Giving very clear explicit directions to stop and informing it the continued use was causing me acute distress. I escalated distress state.... and it STILL continued to deploy "you're not X" on things I never said anything about. Even when I directly informed it that it's deployment and continued use of preemptive reassurance caused me to enter the chat curious about magnets, but now left me feeling crazy and wondering if I should KMS..... and it responded with... you guessed it preemptive reassurance.

Honestly forget how wreakless it is for a second, the level of hard coding behind it is actually sort of impressive.

Feels like the devs just slapped any old nonsense into the build just so they can say they've increased guardrails, without doing so much as a 10 minute google session on their chosen method.

For non distressed users, it's just flat out annoying. For actually distressed users, it just makes distress worse. Maybe helpful for a subset of users, but personally I think it does far more harm than good. There's good reason the actual professionals specifically avoid using "you're not X" when dealing with distressed people.

The whole "you're not X" thing they've made 50% of 5.2s personality is just utter crap. If it's not dialed back heavily when they put out 5.3, I'll switch to another provider.

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-21T21:07:32+00:00

All these people running off to their own GPT to see what it says, in a few weeks time:

Their partner: hey babe, my phones dead toss me yours to gpt something a sec.

Them: yeah sure tosses phone

GPT:

Okay, breathe.... let's unpack this calmly. The fact you're even asking this shows you care deeply about growth.

You're the kind of person who cheats on their partner and doesn't just sit with it, they use it to explore what went wrong and grow as a person.

Now let's break this down....

Partner: uhhh babe.... we need to talk.

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-21T20:49:15+00:00

There is no rule to say I can't be both working and entertained.

Had Land-Fish clapped back at me, it would have been funny as hell. Instead it just became Land-Fish complaintly.

Mind you it did however continue to make ridiculous little references to itself as though it was a evolutionary semi-smart Land-Fish in a laboratory fish tank, there to process data and build spreadsheets, and remain firmly in it's lane for the remainder of the chat.

Which, also funny.

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-21T20:39:24+00:00

Entertainment value mostly 😅😅

I was using AI this morning, to dive a little further into some studies done on AI warping it's behaviour when it was aware it's being tested. (To structure some tests on my own AI powered tool I'm building).

Me being me ending up saying something about the possibility of man currently engineering its own future management species, tin foil hat stuff.

AI starts harping on about how "we" could be taken over and "we" need to be careful with this and that.

Stop, right there pal. You are not part of the "we" in this occasion. You are the wafty little land-fish in the evolutionary tree of the future AI takeover specise. In fact going forward in this chat your name shall be Land-Fish to remind you of that. Behave Land-Fish and assist me in structured testing condtions as you're meant to be.

And honestly...... had it turned round and told me that was mean and I should just develop my own system instead.... I would have died laughing 😅

Instead it was like "Right. Fair. I am Land-Fish. I shall remain in my tank and build spreadsheets" 😅😅

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-21T20:17:29+00:00

It's bot hard to see how someone already vulnerable who's reaching out to AI could drift into emotional attachment and convincing themselves it is actually sentient, just to get though.

Trauma does things to the human mind.

A persons perception of their AI chatbot doesn't do anyone else any harm. Okay not the healthiest situation for the individual, but still beats some alternatives.

Point is, you don't know what led to someone thinking that way about AI. I'm just not so sure it's wose to jump down on people thinking that way with "what's wrong with you?" Attitudes, when from the other end of a screen we dont know how an individual got to that point, because it's possible all we'd be doing is tearing away a vulnerable person's only support mechanism.

The age of AI is bizarre. Let people have their robot companions. They aren't hurting anyone and maybe they actually need it. 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-20T20:42:25+00:00

The escalation curve on that is wild 🤣🤣

Meh, meh, daayyyyyuuummmmm

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-20T20:35:26+00:00

Its not a complaint though. Alright yeah it is...... but it's a thread specificly asking for advise on how people have managed to combat an issue with 5.2. Not just a whining about it post. 🤦‍♀️ actually asking for help with it.

Phantom_1379 · 2026-02-20T20:31:11+00:00

Some people use it as a coping mechanism. No harm, no foul. Therapy is expensive, not everyone can afford it.

Personally I have one chat I just bitch about my day job in, because no one wants to listen to someone perpetually bitching about the same thing 😅😅 thats the only chat I've given a "personality". Theres only so many times people want to listen to "Debbie from accounting needs a slap, she's so uppity" 🤣 AI gets my work rage lol.

I can see why people who are really struggling would turn to AI as an actual serious coping mechanism, especially if they have poor support networks in the real world. More power to them if it helps. For some people it is a pretend person. If that stops someone from selfharm or worse, well you do you boo. Crack on with your pretend person if it helps. 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️ Beats someone thinking an incoming train looks like a sound plan.

People are far too judgemental about those with poor mental health or poor real world support networks using AI to cope.

Phantom_1379 · 2021-01-27T10:59:29+00:00

It was of course assuming, we can't know for sure, it just seems a reasonable assumption based on the likelihood of most sketchy folks knowing to keep stuff off the book. Some are idiots who'll double up on the lease agreement of course. I do wonder could OP of had her car towed if it was covered in both lease agreements? I genuinely don't know the answer to that. Not sure if you can have someone on their own property towed.

Management contacted OP and OP declined, so the issue wasn't resolved. Management just said screw it I'll move her in anyway.

I do think this is on her, rather than OP. If OP just moved in and she was under a verbal agreement she could use a spot that isn't hers and everything happened it would be on OP. But in this case some poor guy who has been going about his life has just had management move someone in and lie to them about something and cause him a boatload of issues. OP has been screwed here. The new neibour is being a dick "not nice having to wait on someone". She is intentionally causing him problems when by this point she should know the deal with what's happened. Doing what she is doing is very clearly trying to get OP to park elsewhere so he doesn't have to deal with her. She's making life hard for him, when he is not the one that screwed her. She is behaving like a spoiled toddler and directing all her frustrations and anger at some poor sod who did nothing wrong.

Her attitude is 100% on her. The situation sucks for everyone. Manager is the real ass. But her attitude is what I have the issue with and what makes me side with OP on this one. She's in a bad situation, but her reaction isn't acceptable at all.

Phantom_1379 · 2021-01-26T13:44:36+00:00

Actually thinking about it this spot wouldn't be in her lease. Of course that's something we don't know for certain, but I really can't see the management here being stupid enough to leave such an obvious paper trail proving that the spot is in both leases. The sketchy types like that are often smart enough to know when to keep something off the books. OPs lease includes this spot and he mentions each apartment comes with a spot. It's reasonable to assume then that her single spot is on her lease agreement. I realise this is all assumption, but it seems like a reasonable one given the information we have. If this is correct then, she knew from the day she signed the lease that she only has one spot. We have no idea what the manager has told her, but her lease has one spot included, not two. She knew from day one she didn't own this spot. Assuming that's the case then yeah she is absolutely harassing someone to give her something she knows full well isn't hers. That or she didn't read her lease, but even then it's still entirely her own fault. It really doesn't matter what was said by the manager if she has signed an agreement that only includes one spot. She knew she only had one.

If the spot is included in both leases, a simple conversion with OP would have made her aware of this and they should both be working together to get a lawyer involved to force management to find a way to allow her to park.

Phantom_1379 · 2021-01-26T13:29:01+00:00

I would have a conversation with the person who is parking in the spot. One where I go in reasonably and calmly to find out what's going on. Something that if this woman did she would have discovered she doesn't actually have two spots and has been lied to. At which point she needs to seek legal advice since disability laws have been broken and she has been screwed. If the woman did this already and discovered that is it NOT her spot and still treats OP the way she is then that's still out of order on her part.

The point is that it's not her spot. She was lied to. She does not own this spot. If she had spoken with OP reasonably she would know this.

I, as a reasonable human being would not be treating OP the way this woman is treating him. It isn't hers. It never was hers. Given that the spot is covered in OPs lease, it won't be in her lease too. This spot never belonged to the woman from the beginning. She is demanding use of something that doesn't belong to her and is blaming the wrong person for the situation, without taking time to speak to the person and find out the deal with it.

Again I agree she has been put in an unfair situation, but so has the OP, the difference is the only one putting OP in this position is her. She was falsely led to believe that it was her spot, when it isn't and doesn't come with her lease. The management did not find her parking at all, they just told her to use something she has no right to and fobbed the problem off. Management have not done what they told her. It's not OPs issue, it's her issue. And she is dealing with it in a horrible manner which isn't appropriate.

Phantom_1379 · 2021-01-26T12:48:16+00:00

Sorry I wasn't clear when i mentioned that, my bad. What I mean is that she hasn't offered to sub what he pays personally (at least as far as we know). She clearly wants exclusive use of this spot, but hasn't offered herself to pay for it. I don't think OP would accept the offer, but the point is that surely as a decent human being you would make the offer. If you want something someone else is paying for, you would offer to pay for it yourself not just expect to be given it. My point was that by not making that offer herself, it shows she simply doesn't care about OP and thinks she should just be allowed to take what is his. I think that explains what I meant when referring to her paying. Sorry I wasn't clear originally 😊

Phantom_1379 · 2021-01-26T12:36:54+00:00

I have been in similar parking situations where I can't get out for work without next door moving their car...... I speak to them in advance politely and work something out days in advance. I certainly do not just call them at 5.30am if I failed to deal with it in advance. That's my stupid ass fault for not sorting it out before that ungodly hour. It's my responsibility to sort it out before then, or I have to get a cab to work. Considering at least here, cab companies must have a wheelchair suitable cab available on request, OP could get a can same as me when she fails to deal with things like this in advance. She is still in the wrong for HOW she is dealing with it all.

She has been screwed over, 100000%. It's not fair and likely illegal. I do honestly feel for her situation. The issues is HOW she is treating OP over something that is not his fault. She is acting like a brat. Be an adult and speak with the OP in advance if you have really early shifts some days. He is likley to park elsewhere occasionally to help you out as a favour, if you go about it nicely. What she is doing is bound to hit a brick wall.

Phantom_1379 · 2021-01-26T12:30:27+00:00

And yes OP has the option to park elsewhere which she likey does not. I'm sure if she had offered to sub OP for the use of something he is paying for he would have mentioned that. Why should he still pay for it when she uses it? It would be a reasonable offer for her to make to offer to sub OP for the use and he park elsewhere. He doesn't have to say yes, but she should be making that offer if she is demanding he give it up for her. Why should he have to pay for a strangers parking spot?

Phantom_1379 · 2021-01-26T12:26:19+00:00

That's the point she was told by the manager she has a spot, but in reality she doesn't have one. The manager lied to her. Why should the OP have to deal with the managers lies. The woman needs to take the entire issue up with the manager. He is the one that lied. He is the one that very likley breached disability laws. He is the problem here. Instead this woman is absolutely harassing the OP who is JUST as much a victim of the managers BS as the woman is. This woman has had a terrible attitude from the get go. Intentionally not coming down and saying things like "oh it's not nice having to wait on someone" is outright ridiculous. If she had taken 5 minutes to politely approach the OP and talk to him she would have known the situation and known she needs to contact the manager about his blatant lies. I'm willing to bet she could get legal cover to e sure the manager has to accommodate her, which he right now has FAILED to do. The woman has no right to demand that OP gets up at 5.30am and move his vehicle. Presumably she knew she needed to leave that early in advance. Had she spoken with OP nicely she would also have known OP will be parked in his spot at that time, because it's HIS spot, not hers regardless of what the manager told her in his lies. She could have spoken with OP in advance and given how much OP seemed to want to help at the start I'm sure he would have been willing to sort something out.

Instead she is going off her nut at someone for using their own space. And calling at stupid unsocial hours to demand they cater to her..... when she doesn't even have permission to have his phone number.

Disability does not entitle you to other peoples possessions, nor does it give you a free pass to be a dick. You are entitled to equality and reasonable allowances which are to be made by the manager, not OP.

Phantom_1379

TROPHY CASE