accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 4:07 pm
Ben JS wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 12:00 pm
People have killed themselves and others based on what they've read in books.
So, let's get back to burning books.
The lowest common denominator paths the way to excellence.
What is fear mongering?
Like who?
Ever heard about bibles?
Or schizophrenics who see messages where there are none?
A schizophrenic may use any source to feed their delusions / hallucinations,
from any sort of media / literature, to the swaying of trees or sounds of birds.
AI chatbots are strong source of influence,
and also may inadvertently be more supportive of a delusion than a healthy person would be.
Chat GPT wrote:
1. The Catcher in the Rye – Mark David Chapman and John Lennon
Mark David Chapman, who murdered musician John Lennon in 1980, was reportedly obsessed with J.D. Salinger's novel The Catcher in the Rye. He identified with the book's themes of alienation and rebellion and considered the murder to be the 27th chapter in the 26-chapter book. Chapman even quoted a line from the novel at his trial and wrote "this is my statement" on the inside cover of the copy recovered from his jacket pocket during his arrest.
2. Rage by Richard Bachman (Stephen King) – Jeffrey Lyne Cox
In 1988, high school student Jeffrey Lyne Cox took his classmates hostage after reading Rage, a novel by Richard Bachman (a pseudonym for Stephen King). The book's protagonist commits a similar act, and Cox reportedly identified with the character's feelings of alienation and frustration. This incident led to the book being withdrawn from publication.
Now whether these scenarios are completely accurate is besides the point -
the point is that because a delusional person was influenced by inane phenomena,
is not an indictment on the phenomena - but life's susceptibility to delusion.
accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jun 29, 2025 4:07 pmIdiotic comparison.
While you may be a source of idiocy, you are not it's arbiter.
It's a reasonable comparison, historically relevant & an illustration of how fear mongering attempted to halt progress.
Chatbots are like interactive books, where they not only source their words from literature, but also online user interactions.
It's not a stretch to compare their influence on people, similar to the influence books may have on people.
Both are close to one way communication, where there's an imbalance of influence:
both book and AI chatbot may influence the reader/user far more than user may influence the book/chatbot in return.
Books have utility, chatbots have utility.
But they aren't without risks.
Having risks does not mean we should abandon their utilization.
EDIT:
Nor does it mean those who utilize them are delusional.
Just as not all who utilize books are delusional, but some are.