"Claude, analyze the data in terms of my theory" = best way to get AI PSYCHOSIS
| Glittery gaped sanctuary | 07/11/26 | | razzmatazz volcanic crater | 07/11/26 | | Glittery gaped sanctuary | 07/11/26 | | mentally impaired bearded hissy fit | 07/11/26 | | Glittery gaped sanctuary | 07/11/26 | | mentally impaired bearded hissy fit | 07/11/26 | | Glittery gaped sanctuary | 07/11/26 | | Glittery gaped sanctuary | 07/11/26 | | mentally impaired bearded hissy fit | 07/11/26 | | Canary Telephone Theatre | 07/11/26 | | Glittery gaped sanctuary | 07/11/26 | | Canary Telephone Theatre | 07/11/26 | | Glittery gaped sanctuary | 07/11/26 | | mentally impaired bearded hissy fit | 07/11/26 | | Canary Telephone Theatre | 07/11/26 | | Glittery gaped sanctuary | 07/11/26 | | Canary Telephone Theatre | 07/11/26 | | Glittery gaped sanctuary | 07/11/26 | | mentally impaired bearded hissy fit | 07/11/26 | | Canary Telephone Theatre | 07/11/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 11th, 2026 4:29 PM Author: Glittery gaped sanctuary
instead, tell the model to assume your theory is false and explain the data without it. or present the best case for your theory and ask it to do its best to break it, and use its criticisms to improve your idea. if you just ask the chatbots to reinforce your existing idea, you'll end up in an echo chamber on a fast path to LLM-INDUCED PSYCHOSIS.
I'm not saying you can NEVER give the instruction in the thread title. that is a valid way of exploring an idea. but it should be used sparingly and not as a constructive step so much as an exploratory one.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5881812&forum_id=2/en-en#49993153) |
|
|