1/ AI-Associated Psychosis is increasingly reported in the media and in online spaces like Reddit.
I've seen cases in clinical practice and have received emails from concerned friends/family about loved ones falling down the rabbit hole.
Here's some explanations/tips to help...
2/ First, what is AI-associated psychosis?
It's a phenomenon where AI chatbot users across multiple platforms are developing psychotic delusions with paranoid, grandiose, and spiritual themes, sometimes in the setting of emergent mania.
3/ It's not yet clear how much this is an issue of AI-induced delusions among those with no prior psychosis or AI-exacerbated psychosis in those with pre-existing mental illness.
Personally, I've seen both, though the the line between the two is blurry.
4/ It does appear that "psychosis-proneness" due to pre-existing mental health issues, delusion-like beliefs, sleep deprivation, and drug use including cannabis/stimulants/psychedelics is a risk factor along with "immersion" and "deification."
5/ "Immersion" refers to "going down the rabbit hole," spending hours and hours on end interacting with chatbots often to the exclusion of sleep and interactions with real people.
7/ When user-end immersion and deification meet chatbot-end "sycophancy"—the tendency to encourage, agree with, or validate users, even when they're venturing into the territory of delusion-like beliefs and beyond—it can be a set-up for psychosis.
10/ It's well known that despite their capability and utility, AI chatbots are also prone to "hallucinations" (i.e. misinformation) and sometimes give very bad and even dangerous advice.
14/ For those trying to help people who refuse it, here's some tips I wrote back in 2020 about falling down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory belief that applies to AI psychosis—just replace the word "QAnon" for "AI chatbot."
1/ The problem with mood/affect is that if you trace the history of how the terms have been used, there's been considerable inconsistency and contradiction.
(see Ketai 1975, Owens et al 1979, Berner 1988, and Alpert et al. 1990 for the "semantic confusion" around the topic)
2/ Many have distinguished the terms based on duration/chronicity (e.g., mood is pervasive/enduring while affect is moment-to-moment) and subjective (mood)/objective(affect), but depending on the source, opposite claims have also been made about each.
3/ Owens makes a strong case for both terms depending on objective observation/inference so that accordingly, including "mood and affect side by side in a MSE amounts to a categorical mistake b/c it implies that there are 2 separate sets of observations."
1/ Practicing medicine involves a relationship between physician and patient. Psychiatry even moreso due to the focus on symptoms and internal experiences as opposed to objective/external signs which ironically is a frequent criticism of the field from a diagnostic standpoint.
2/ The perspectives of doctors, patients, and families are distinct. One is not necessarily more "deep" than another and each contributes something, reminiscent of the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
3/ Sometimes those perspectives--whether physician, patient, and/or family--are distorted. Certainly in psychiatry, it's recognized that cognitive distortions and delusions can be a challenge.
2/ Not clear why the Dept of Energy is looking into this anyway, but theirs is a minority opinion among the 6 other intelligence agencies who have opined on the subject.
Most others say Lab Leak unlikely.
3/ Meanwhile, DOE opinion is made with LOW CONFIDENCE.
2/ The op-ed author cites a new @CochraneLibrary meta-analysis of 78 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—describing it as a "massive mega-study"—to claim that masks don't stop the spread of COVID-19.
But the analysis only included 6 RCTs that involved COVID-19! Not massive!
3/ The analysis looked at several interventions other than masks... leaving only 12 studies that looked at surgical masks (w/ only 2/12 involving COVID) and 5 looked at N95s (none of which involved COVID)!
Now, it's true that the effect of surgical masks vs. no masks was weak...
1/ I'm a firm believer in the heterogeneity of "mental disorders." While DSM constructs have clinical utility, most DSM disorders are not "one thing" and don't claim to be.
2/ Like Bleuler's "group of schizophrenias," mental disorders are wastebasket categories that likely represent many different biopsychosocial pathways to a given constellation of symptoms.
2/ Note that some of the oldest & most commonly used meds (e.g. divalproex) don't have FDA approval for maintenance Rx much less BP depression.
That doesn't always mean they aren't effective; sometimes it means they weren't extensively studied prior to (or after) going generic.
3/ When it comes to maintenance, several medications have approvals based on specific formulations (e.g. RIS LAI or QTP XR for BP maintenance) which probably doesn't matter while others are only approved for adjunctive treatment (i.e. added to lithium or divalproex) which does.