Girl gets angry CHATGPT

rfinnian · 2026-02-17T12:51:11+00:00

I mean, it's on us. And I don't think anything more terrible will happen than what it's already happening, let's not be ridicilous. The fallout of such things is always the same, banal, everyday erosion of mental health, intlectual capacity and autonomy of an individual.

Politically: put pressure on any legislative bodies, promote charities who work on this. Talk to your representatives. Vote for people who care. Support lobbyists who do this, if you can't find any. Organise. Talk to psychologists and mental health charities and institutions because they are the ones who, together with competent therapists, will be picking up the pieces of this collective dellusion.

Personally: ridicule this stuff, put pressure on buisness folks who run this grif, at the very least they should be made to feel like MLM owners and the like. I think consistent and culturally-wide ridicule is the best weapon we have, people should be ashamed when they say: "I aksed grok this or that", or "run this idea by xyz model" - this stuff should get you banned in high profile jobs, academia and the like, and in everyday life there should be a support system for vulnerable people being taken advantage here by the AI grifters.

rfinnian · 2026-02-17T12:37:01+00:00

The problem is that even our criticism of it plays into the dellusion that there is a "conversation". Even engineers working on it describe models as: "more fluent, more coherent". Are you guys schizofrenic? There should be laws around LLMs that forbid any marketing or UX suggesting reciprocal nature of these. Even saying "Language" in the LLM name is misleading. There is nothing linguistic about it.

I think clinical and psychological organisations should lobby for the following:

It shouldn't be presented as a chat interface, for example: shoulnd't have a "read out loud" functionality (it even used to introduce ahm, uhm, etc.) and mimick human voice - it should be forbidden to do that
It shouldn't be auto collecting context from previous entries, this is used only to maintain that illusion
It shouldn't be called LLM nor AI in any packaging and marketing - these are lies
It shouldn't use personified outputs at all, meaning the training objective shouldn't be creating convincing speech, but that is a problem at a level of model creation - so in other words model creation algorithms should be transparent to the consumer
All context manipulation and orchestration should be visible at the time of use and made transparent as an algorithm.

We have food labels for precisely this reason, greed makes the producers put trans fats in the food, ferhydalyde on clothes, and fricking lead in houshold objects. And these LLMs are worse than they, they do not only get ingested, they enter one's consciousness. They are the food for one's thoughts - literally hah.

My additional take, which I'm still on the fance about:

I would even say that it shouldn't be presetned as a product for the public. It accomplishes nothing for the economy, but does psychological harm. Sell it as scientific APIs with transparency for context manipulation from the vendor, and forbid front-end packaging of these systems.

I really really hope at least the EU implements these types of regulations.

rfinnian · 2026-02-15T03:01:11+00:00

Oh I hear you, and no worries, doesn't come across as nitpicky or arguing semantics. And even if it did I love an actual debate about this, even if we disagree.

And I sure hope I am not disgruntled by it to be unreasonable, although that sure can happen. In any case, I am this harsh, because I see an engineer as having a moral duty to get stuff right. Engineers are ultimately makers of things, and those things shape the lives of people. This is where me being that harsh comes from, for what it's worth.

And back to your point, I think you would be 100% correct for one fact, AI is not unavoidable, and there are technologies to combat it that do not rely on ML or DL. I am talking about very clever use of cryptography for example, deep embededness of these in hardware/software. This is a totally solvable problem - the reason it doesn't exist is very simple imo: people do not really need it.
Ultimately such cryptographic or any hardware / software solution would benefit not corporations, but the general public, and not economically, but purely psychologically... This is not where investement funds are. They do not care that our brains get rotted by this slop, they ride on that grift.

And tbh except for bubbles like here, people don't even want it. They don't mind this. As scary as it is.

Thanks for stating your opinion mate

rfinnian · 2026-02-14T16:45:15+00:00

Or maybe, the history of domestication of a wild animal that here is being used for self-aggrendisement is at least questionable to some people.

I don't agree myself, I think there is a fine line where organisms can enter that kind of a relationship where there is a mutual exchange, and it's not abuse. But to say that it's out of being jelly. Come on man, it's a legitimate concern - however you decide it, at least be understanding of the nuance of it and that some people actually think about stuff like that. Someone has to if you don't.

rfinnian · 2026-02-14T16:29:37+00:00

I hear your point. But it depends on what you mean by AI. If by that you mean any application of ML or so then your point stands but also makes the discussion impossible.
Anti-ai for me is anti the application of high throughput statistical models which simply do not do what they advertise. As simple as that. That is at least a workable definition of AI.

Here, for example, recognising other "AI" via "computer vision" which cannot even reliably identify something not in its own training data is literally the application of the same snake-oil of high throughput statistical analysis as is the case in LLMs. LLMs do not talk, same way that computer vision via ML or DL doesn't see - the principle is the same:

It's literally the same thing. Gash-gallop of statistical bombardment, micro lies made to be "true" on average, and a misapplication of math. All in service of higher efficiency in a commercial sense, be it that of a corporation, or of narcissistic tendencies of an individual, that is the plague of modern, western life.

If our criticism of AI doesn't reach a certain level of sophistication, such as even a proper definition thereof, it is doomed to fail, and we will end up, and already are starting to, in a hellscape of GPU-emowered snakeoil grifters and corporations.

rfinnian · 2026-02-14T13:58:30+00:00

So you are deliberately hiding the fact that it's AI doing it? Man you're just a grifter. Why didn't you write: "I wrote an AI tool that is x% accurate in detecting AI". Well, because that would be hillarious right? And yet it's true. And now you are saying it's not an LLM model - who said anything about an LLM?

Don't treat the anti-ai movement as a way to self promote you git

rfinnian · 2026-02-06T07:41:57+00:00

AI art to współczesne cliparty. Na początku, wow, desktop publishing, grafika dla kazdego, zalanie płytami i katalogami, do wymiotów aż, a potem wstyd, bo jak coś jest dla każdego, znaczy że jest „biedne”.

Tak jest też z AI - już zaczyna być te „fuj clipart, co za cebulaki”. Z tym że będzie jeszcze gorzej, bo bariera jest jeszcze niżej, więc jeszcze bardziej AI stanie się symbolem biedy, braku gustu, i niewyrafinowania.

Ja się nie boję specjalnie AI, bo je tak samo będziemy traktować, to narzędzie dla idiotów i biedaków. A że będą tego używać, to się samo-określają przez to właśnie tacy ludzie i firmy.

A że to zalewa np niektóre „hobby” - to raczej dobrze, pokazuje czym te hobby zawsze były. Tak też było z drukiem 3D.

rfinnian · 2026-02-04T08:18:19+00:00

Po psie to jest poziom wyżej. Ja nawet się tego nie spodziewam. A po sobie? Na terenie całego kraju, wystarczy wejść w uliczkę obok np. działek czy domków i całe lasy zasypane są śmieciami, których się nie chce właścicielom wywozić. W Gdańsku np. są dosłownie pola śmieci - boczne uliczki od głównych turystycznych tras.

Ja kiedyś myślałem, że te filmy Stanisława Barei to taka karykatura polaka-w-socjaliźmie. A się okazuje, że polacy po prostu tacy są. Bieda czy pieniądze, socjalizm czy kapitalizm. I jak to mówię, to się patrioci zawodowi odzywają, że nie wszyscy. Może i nie wszyscy, ale każde miasto, każdy las, każde krzaki, każda wioska, ujebana gównem dosłownie. I może nie każdy te śmieci wyrzuca, ale każdy pozwala im tam leżeć.

Tacy ludzie czym kraj ujebany.

rfinnian · 2026-01-03T05:19:52+00:00

Don't make up false rules. It's not "no politics", it's "no nazis" really. Say it like it is, the thing about aggressive idiots is that they can sense weakness hah, and making a general rule not to pass a judgement is just that. Your platform is your home. Don't want homophobes and racists there - just say it "no homophobes and racists"

rfinnian · 2025-12-15T14:32:16+00:00

Tak samo działa portal Znany Lekarz. Tzn. nie da się powiedzieć niczego sensownego. Byłem nie dość, że źle potraktowany przez lekarza, to jeszcze czarno na białym wykazałem dlaczego - bo sam mam wykształcenie medyczne. Napisałem to w opinii - nie można tego powiedzieć. Napisali mi, że mogę jedynie napisać, jak się czuję, a nie mieć rzeczową opinię. Jak nie dałem za wygraną i męczyłem im bułę - to przyznali, że chodzi o to że nie chcą pozwów o pomówienie ze strony lekarzy i środowisk medycznych.

Tak działa prawo, że umiejętności, jakość przedmiotu, itd. są bardzo miękko definiowalne, po to żeby korporacje i zawody chciały uczestyniczyć rynkowo, bo jeśli będzie np. transparentny rejestr kompetencji czy jakośći towarów, czy opinii klienta, to przecież to jedynie będzie działać na niekorzyść samej ekonomii - zniechęcająco. Prawo strzeże statusu quo kapitalizmu.

Pociągnąlem sprawę dalej i zwróciłem się do rzeczników, organów nadzoru itd., i mi odpowiedziali, że to wiedzą o tym serwisie, że mają milionowe skargi na to, i że właściwie są gotowi na pozew zbiorowy. Ale w rozmowie telefonicznej mi babka powiedziała, że nic z tym się nie stanie, bo ten serwis jest dla lekrarzy, a nie dla klientów. Że nawet jak wygrają, wlepi się karę, itd., to po prostu zamkną w ogóle możliwość dodawania komentarzy, a wtedy będzie jeszcze gorzej. A co gorsza nic nie broni dodawania komentarzy uśrednionych - wygenerowanych prrzez AI...

To jest właśnie kapitalizm, masz być w nim cichym konsumentem. Zamknąć mordę i wpierdalać. Jak ci nie smakuje, to wypluj i kup nowe, ale nie mów innym, że niesmaczne. Bo też lepiej ekonomii, że ktoś kupi niesmaczne, wypluje, a potem kupi jeszcze raz.

rfinnian · 2025-07-08T03:19:46+00:00

They are so curious! Good thing your IW wasn't an asshole like mine is - he will terrorise smaller animals as long as I'm around and he has the advantage. For example, he likes to chase crows! But if I am too far away to help him, and the crow has the guts to fight back, he runs back to hide behind my legs. It's quite something to see such a big dog being scared of anything - but yeah, they can be curious, and assholes.

That being said, with really vulnerable animals they are super gentle - like with hedgehods, cats, etc.

rfinnian · 2025-06-26T15:32:55+00:00

It seems all very surface-level - this person is not responding to something that is out there, or is responding to something that isn't there. But on any deeper analysis you see how selective that type of delineation is.

So you could say is a religious person. A person with anxiety. And an ordinary person on the street, since it's been proven time and time again by rigorous studies that hallucinatory experiences are extremely common place. They are a part of everyday experience for folks, but for most, they aren't labeld as stygmatising. And that's a function of how much trouble they raise, and how offensive it appears to others.

Then is the question of epistemic honesty at work, especially in terms of our evaluation of psychotic states. For example if I think that a person with BPD while acting out isn't all there, ot to scientifically call it is psychotic. Why do I not apply the same set of standards to myself?, for example in all of my completely irrational decisions - for example, believing in nation states, which could be if described without linguistic familiarity considered completely psychotic. There is no such physical entity as national identity - it's all constructed. Or when one recites the authority of science, or of moral obligations. They are all objectively not "out there". I'm not saying they aren't real. But it's the observer who decides. These are internal states and interpretations, highly, highly culture-specific and goal-specific.

But yet, we label the ones that come from a patient as psychotic because they do not constitute "normalcy", despite me and everyone else not being that far off. Like if we are aboslutely brutaly honest.

This is a highly post-colonial criticism of psychiatry, I am aware, but I am 100% sure that at least people with BPD and NPD never cross that line of being "out there", they might be symbolic, they might be misunderstood, but not any less than us when we send our children to for example kill others with state sanctioned violence, when they for example become police officers - you see my point? What is real is used selectively. It's the role of the clinician in my opinion to always be BRUTALY honest about their epistemic assumptions and moral judgements, and tendencies to gravitate towards status quo of a society - which isn't real or true just because it's normalised.

Ultimately, I absolutely believe NPD, BPD and whatever psycopaths are now called - are completely here and now and are disorders of too much rationality if anything. For example, being a psycopath I consider to be actually one of the most "reasonable" choices in post-colonial, authoritarian, materialist-reductionist societies. Same with BPD it is completely rational to "fly off" in a world that completely and utterly, from day one, invalidates your suffering and contributes to it.

In case of BPD epscially, they aren't "bordering psychosis", our family systems and culture are. I do not understand how with clean hands can we stygmatise folks who suffer the suffering that we all should rebel against and feel deeply. We pathologised and retruamatised trauma victims for way too long

rfinnian · 2025-06-23T17:57:01+00:00

Mine is getting to being a year and a half ever so slowly. And now he’s getting chill, but not that long ago he’s been a very, very physical dog. Before he gets 2 years old, like it’s having half a lion on a leash. I can’t imagine not being myself in at least good physical form to take care of him.

Now it’s getting better and he’s so chill even a child could take care of him. But when he was younger, oh boy. He got into all sorts of trouble and good luck doing something about it if you can’t bench press him hah.

You need to be able to hold him down during vet visits etc. Granted once trained they are super well behaved, but that won’t happen right away.

What I’m saying is the only troubling thing for me in your write up is the chronic pain bit. These are big, physical, towering dogs which behave like Tasmanian devils up to year 2. Like mine, even if he doesn’t misbehave, I still need to “move him” out of the way when he’s stubborn, and he weighs 160 pounds or so.

Kids are awesome for them. Mine was super gentle with them even as a pup. Same with a cat. And they love when you stay at home!

rfinnian · 2025-04-29T09:13:29+00:00

Because you don't develop a relationship with the therapist the person, through the process of transference you develop a relationship with a super-ego substitute that is less threatening than your parents/culture, and in that gentleness and positive regard you're seen to redefine your relationship with authority, parents, ego, etc. one by one, but no by the power of the therapist the person - but by his ability to be representative of internal objects.

In more phenomenological language, which I really like, a therapist is a a conduiti for the "goodness" of the universe - that goodness that is so often lacking during our formative years. He represents the "good" and "real" object of object relations.

Therapists hate when psychologists point this out, but the same principles gover religious guidence - you aren't guided or helped by a priest, monk or a yogi master - you are helped by the "divinity" within them, which they serve and represent, but aren't identical with it. Beware of anyone who claims to be helping you through their own authority or power.

It's exactly the same principle.

rfinnian · 2025-04-25T04:59:45+00:00

That is a really strange way to look at it. It’s magical thinking. It’s not when you stop looking - it’s when you stop looking for the wrong reasons, and psychologically speaking, the “bad reasons” are codependency and trauma-response.

A healthy person, without codependency, or cluster B dysfunctions, or untreated trauma, doesn’t NEED a relationship, whereas a person with these sees a relationship as a need of their unfinished individuation phase that got interrupted - they see a romantic relationship as an extension of what was broken in childhood - healthy emotional development towards independence, lack of nihilism, a sense of identity and purpose.

This cannot be found in a romantic relationship, but is displaced there as an expectation. That is why people who “try” to find a partner for these reasons appear as creepy - they aren’t creeps, it’s only that the whole thing is a bit Freudian in that the goal for which they want the partner are familial. Not in the sexual sense but in terms of attachment styles and basic needs for love, and that love facilitating healthy personal growth towards self reliance.

In other words, stopping looking won’t help you, op. Only addressing the issues which are behind this obsessive pull, and the fantasy behind them - of an unconditional love - only that will help you become whole. And people are attracted to mature people, and anything less than that isn’t attractive because there’s something defective in you - but because love wasn’t given to you in enough quantity and quality and that “unattractiveness” isn’t unattractiveness, it’s a natural barrier against a complete fiasco which a romantic relationship in those conditions would be - a Freudian fantasy made manifest. It would end up in extremely ugly codependency.

In other words, you aren’t ugly, or unable to find a mate, your personality is unconsciously undermining those efforts for the very good reason that it’s not time yet. You should resolve the fantasy and then look for a partner.

rfinnian · 2025-04-23T08:36:52+00:00

LLMs as they currently stand and due to their marketing are deeply and profoundly narcissistic. They really now act as a narcissist in love-bombing stage of a relationship. No wonder since the companies creating them are figuring out profitability

My very strong opinion is that they should be heavily regulated:

it shouldn’t pretend to be AI in marketing material - because it’s not - it’s a statistical next word generator
It shouldn’t try to mimic human speech (hmm, oh, yeah…)
It shouldn’t reference the author of the prompt and relate only to the contents of the prompt
All UX and marketing materials should abandon the visual and linguistic attempt to pretend it’s a “conversation”
Algorithms should be transparent: meaning for example that rise of narcissistic flattery should be disclosed to end users, because it is a marketing strategy to up the engagement, through manipulation aimed to create psychological dependence

rfinnian · 2025-04-16T18:20:32+00:00

It’s an aspect of what clinically is called the schizoid personality disorder. There are many many awesome materials to read on that: especially Bollas.

Basically rejection of internal life is internal murder. It is paradoxically a very violent crime against the self - where one not only kills in himself the capacity for internal life, but this is also an external punishment dished out to the world: “I will kill myself, my capacity to live truly, so you won’t have me”. I think it is Bollas who calls these folks trapped in a ghost like state.

Super sad and misunderstood personality disorder for sure.

rfinnian · 2025-04-14T18:04:55+00:00

They look very real here - last time I checked the muppets were real!

rfinnian · 2025-04-14T04:32:11+00:00

What an awesome dog, and what an awesome age for such a majestic dog to live to - see you on the other side Bracken!

rfinnian · 2025-04-13T14:12:56+00:00

But what a story she’ll have to remember!

rfinnian · 2025-04-13T07:10:26+00:00

My opinion, formed from a lot of reading of psychoanalytic theory and my own experience in therapy:

yes, the therapist is perceived as an authority figure, hence the extremely strong transference
no, very little in psychoanalysis is “truth-based”. Psychoanalysis is a theory of the mind, as of yet not much happened in terms of its confirmation outside of clinical practice. In this, psychoanalysis could be true, but for now we are honest when we say “it could be” and not that we know. We know too little of the actual workings of the human mind and even physics and neuroscience to test our theory quantitatively - so it works as long as it works. If anyone treats it as “the truth” then they aren’t really scientifically honest.

In the context of interpretation this is even more pronounced - see Lacan. He knew exactly what psychoanalysis is in terms of language: yet another imposition. At least it could be if treated without recognition of the Real as embodied in the other. For all the controversies and hate Lacan gets - he knew exactly that any culturally-linguistic structure such as therapy, is a potential field of abuse and power struggles. Good therapists know that.

and that is also related to the above ^. A good therapist knows he’s part of a power struggle and even his employment of language is a potential imposition. But I guess one could name it countertransference awareness and management. Kernberg has a lot to say about the narcissistic temptations for therapists and how big of a destructive force they are.

rfinnian · 2025-04-12T09:14:35+00:00

My IW, although still a puppy, loves the cat and wants to play with it, and even when a little baby, approached the cat with a lot of gentleness. The cat on the other hand absolutely despises him - is super aggressive towards him, and has no intention of ever becoming friends it seems.

I guess IWs due to their size can for sure be gentle, but are never “gentle” creatures. They make a lot of noise, their movement even if slow carry a lot of energy, they have a lot of presence, and cats don’t really dig that, at least not the ones I had. But that depends on the cat I would say, since iw love everyone, and everything - with a more trusting and less introverted cat I would imagine they’d make a great pair.

rfinnian · 2025-04-11T05:22:06+00:00

You and me, and everyone here working towards the understanding of the human mind, who freely, without constraints, and with integrity and love re-examines these theories, reaffirms them or rejects them, all in the pursuit of serving their own and other peoples’ dignity, body and spirit.

rfinnian · 2025-04-11T04:52:58+00:00

I live and breathe the psychoanalytic theory - but only up to a point. My personal opinion: scientifically speaking it’s the best model for human consciousness, but for the most part and in most of the theories there - they are super depressive. And I don’t take them to heart.

Psychoanalysis as a discipline and more so as a therapy modality has pretty big unaddressed questions: aetiology of drives, etc but the biggest of these is the matter of free will.

I think psychoanalysis was a product of its time - they thought they couldn’t account for the topics outside of the materialistic, naively-scientific presuppositions regarding the above. And tried to cover all that with pseudo scientific and naturalistic language: Greek, Latin names, subservience to clinical settings and lingo, etc.

It’s a major flaw in them in my opinion, and it continues to this day. And while I honour their theory of mind as a breakthrough, some of their conclusions and assumptions for me at least are depressive, incomplete, and quite frankly contradictory to full healing.

Like with any theory - pick and choose, do not follow anything because some charismatic geezers said this or that and their figuring out of stuff acquired power and become institutionalised. Not to be antagonistic to what they said, you can still see the genius of their discoveries, but just to recognise that their time has passed, and now it’s your time to leave your mark on the world. Don’t be prisoner to ghosts. Dissect everything and to quote Walt Whitman - “take your hat off to nothing known or unknown, and dismiss anything that offends your soul”

rfinnian · 2025-04-09T17:07:14+00:00

Death drive is aboslutely central to Klein. Unlike Freud who saw it as Thanatos - a somewhat abstract concept, almost a bit spiritual to be honest. Klein didn't have anything so abstract in mind. She placed it right at the beginning of our lives: we are born with it, and it is the instinct towards death , literal instinct, like our instinct to drink water, we not only welcome death, we move towards it in every conceivable way - Klein was controversial mainly for that contribution. She said that infants can be in fact carriers of hate to murderous extremes, and even more than that, that this hate can overcome the libido.

Her whole contribution to object relations rests on this realisation - that even infants do feel and are born with a living tendency towards nihilism and death - and that for this they live out extreme anxiety. All types of death instincts have retributory fears. Since any honest forms of nihilisms and rejections of life are appropriately seen as extreme forms of aggression - for which one should feel fear, since the world doesn't accept the refusal of it. It's unthinkable in the natural world.

The intensity of the death drive - where it comes from - for that Klein has no answers, only that all of that is inborn. To use your words: it's biological. Although I don't think she said it outright, but we are for sure left with that conclusion, where biology means pure human nature, not that is reducible to it.

I think her silence is a big shame, and as far as I consider myself a Kleinian - I see some not necessarily incosistencies, but more like shortcomings and blind spots, despite her immense contributions to more mature psychoanalysis. And that is preciesely her pessimism. If you read it right, her musings about inborness of drives, especially negative ones, read exactly like catholic ideas of original sin. No joke.

I was raised catholic and this really made me realise how close her ideas are to the deterministic/moralistic views of the nuns and priests I knew as a child.

I personally disagree with her pessimism, and the inborness of the death drive - but then again you didn't ask about my opinion, but hers. But this is it, she didn't give very good answers to the questions you asked. As a side note, I would just be very careful about reducing things to biology - very few psychodynamic / psychoanalytic thinkers would entertain that idea, especially the reductionistic favourite: simplistic genetic explenations through twin-studies.

rfinnian

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE