You’re making the assumption that all “bosses” mentioned in the article are people seeking infinite growth.
You’re making an assumption about a group of people you know nothing about and trying to link them with people suffering from psychosis. Essentially grouping “people suffering from psychosis” together with “greedy CEO’s”. Whereas greedy CEO’s could also simply be narcissistic, evil or simply lying to others to get more money.
By grouping them with psychosis sufferers you’re denying the sufferers their lived experience in favor of assumptions.
Greed is a symptom of possibly many mental conditions. You’re all over the place. All these things you’re arguing against are well established ideas, both in common experience and the psychological community.
That’s potato/potahto when it comes to mental illness. Without the tendency, it won’t develop. AI, because it embodies the potential to replace workers, accelerates the whole process. Making management not just look more psychotic, but become more psychotic, or at least be further down the path.
Because you can’t be horrible to others without feeling bad, no matter who you are. And how well you feel factors intimately into the intensity of mental illness.
To add more, if they weren’t greedy and salivating over giving their workers a shove out the door, they would sanely evaluate what AI brings to the table before upending all their business. They are all obviously unhinged and all the AI did for them was let them act the way they have wanted to basically forever.
AI might feed their disease, but it was already there, and it didn’t hallucinate them into psychosis - they have always been right on the edge.
“AI might feed their disease, but it was already there, and it didn’t hallucinate them into psychosis - they have always been right on the edge.”
Is a contradiction.
Being on the edge of psychosis is not the same as being in one. Within this part you both claim that AI doesn’t hallucinate them into psychosis because they were already on the edge.
So your argument is “AI doesn’t hallucinate people into psychosis it just feeds into it and pushes them over the edge”
Which is exactly what hallucinating someone into psychosis means.
No.
I’m mad about the misrepresentation of psychosis
Ah, ok. So for my next question, why is seeking infinite growth not a psychotic delusion?
You’re making the assumption that all “bosses” mentioned in the article are people seeking infinite growth.
You’re making an assumption about a group of people you know nothing about and trying to link them with people suffering from psychosis. Essentially grouping “people suffering from psychosis” together with “greedy CEO’s”. Whereas greedy CEO’s could also simply be narcissistic, evil or simply lying to others to get more money.
By grouping them with psychosis sufferers you’re denying the sufferers their lived experience in favor of assumptions.
a state of distorted reality, marked by disturbances in perception and thought, disorganized behavior, and negative symptoms
Ticks those boxes
Or they’re lying for money rather than suffering from a mental condition.
https://dangoyal.substack.com/p/the-neuroscience-of-greed
Greed is a symptom of possibly many mental conditions. You’re all over the place. All these things you’re arguing against are well established ideas, both in common experience and the psychological community.
You also seem to be using darvo.
What is darvo?
Edit: reading the article it seems my way of thinking was indeed a bit simple minded
Still I would like to argue the point that AI doesn’t reveal psychosis, it develops it.
That’s potato/potahto when it comes to mental illness. Without the tendency, it won’t develop. AI, because it embodies the potential to replace workers, accelerates the whole process. Making management not just look more psychotic, but become more psychotic, or at least be further down the path.
Because you can’t be horrible to others without feeling bad, no matter who you are. And how well you feel factors intimately into the intensity of mental illness.
To add more, if they weren’t greedy and salivating over giving their workers a shove out the door, they would sanely evaluate what AI brings to the table before upending all their business. They are all obviously unhinged and all the AI did for them was let them act the way they have wanted to basically forever.
AI might feed their disease, but it was already there, and it didn’t hallucinate them into psychosis - they have always been right on the edge.
The age old story of labor vs. capital.
“AI might feed their disease, but it was already there, and it didn’t hallucinate them into psychosis - they have always been right on the edge.”
Is a contradiction. Being on the edge of psychosis is not the same as being in one. Within this part you both claim that AI doesn’t hallucinate them into psychosis because they were already on the edge.
So your argument is “AI doesn’t hallucinate people into psychosis it just feeds into it and pushes them over the edge”
Which is exactly what hallucinating someone into psychosis means.
Why are you defending AI?