[alaithea]

ChatGPT has been shown to spend much more time validating people's poor ideas than it does refuting them, even in cases where specific guardrails have supposedly been implemented, such as to avoid encouraging self-harm. See recent articles about AI usage inducing god-complexes and psychoses, for instance[1]. Validation of the user giving the prompt is what it's designed to do, after all. AI seems to be objectively worse for humanity than what we've had before it.

[1]: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/urban-survival/20250...

[criley2]

Strongly disagree, and you've misread what you've linked. These linked cases are situations where people are staying in one chat and posting thousands and thousands of replies into a single context, diluting the system prompt and creating a fever-dream of hallucination and psychosis. These are also rarely thinking and tool calling models, relying more on raw-LLM generation instead of thinking and sourcing (cheap/free models versus high powered subscriber only thinking models).

As we all know, the longer the context, the worse the reply. I strongly recommend you delete your context frequently and never stay in one chat.

What I'm talking about is using fresh chat for questions about the world, often political questions. Grab statistics on something and walk through major arguments for and against an idea.

If you think ChatGPT is providing worse answers than X.com and reddit.com for political questions, quite frankly, you've never used it before.

Try it out. Go to reddit.com/r/politics and find a +5,000 comment about something, or go to x.com and find the latest elon conspiracy, and run it by ChatGPT 5-thinking-high.

I guarantee you ChatGPT will provide something far more intellectual, grounded, sourced and fair than what you're seeing elsewhere.