u/OkPosition6537

Starting a conversation with an AI and expecting it to get worse by spouting nonsense won't change anything.

Yes, companies can use conversations to train new models, but these conversations will enter a final training phase, not when the model is establishing its foundations, and they also undergo curation.

That's not how LLMs work, because if they did, they would be useless.

For example, if you're having a conversation about avocados, and the model has to shift the weight of tokens that connect to "green" for the conversation to be more precise, you'd have a completely schizophrenic model for talking about anything other than avocados.

First of all: I've been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. I went through 10 years of failed treatments before receiving a diagnosis that would bring some minimal results for me, and even then they are not definitive results.

Today, the causes of mental illnesses are defined as "biopsychosocial." Literally everything. How can you work scientifically with something that is caused by everything and that we can't test or measure on anything? The symptom tables for some of these illness are radically broad, preventing any precise definition.

The worst, for me, is the "genetic cause." It's theorized that mental illnesses are caused or facilitated by genes, but not by one gene, nor by a defined line of genes, but by dozens of variable genes that together would cause the problems. This makes absolutely no sense; our gene pool is gigantic, and we have genetic lines identical to those of a lot of other random people. Until we have a precise DNA mapping tool, this theory should not be accepted so easily.

This sounds to me similar to how, in the past, populations suffering from nutritional deficiencies and developing illnesses as a result were often labeled as carriers of infectious diseases simply because people close to them presented the same illness. When in reality, what defined proximity was a similar diet causing the same nutritional deficiency.

In my view, saying that a person has a high chance of developing the same illness as their parents because of their blood is an almost outrageous simplification of the possible causes.

It is one of the only fields where science has not yet been able to prove the causes with any degree of precision, and yet theories with numerous flaws are widely accepted.

I'm not saying we should deny the existence of mental illnesses, but rather understand that they have conventional definitions and shouldn't have such weak, widely supported theories based on trial and error instead of understanding the real cause.

We accept conventions and transform them into beliefs for convenience.