[handoflixue]

In general, "loss of contact with reality" is well understood to be an individual experience. If you think voices are talking to you, that's schizophrenia. If you think God wrote an entire book of life advice, that's Christianity. So, kinda by definition, a large group of people cannot generally experience "loss of contact with reality", they're merely mistaken.

The alternative is to accept that 90% of humans are suffering some form or another of psychosis, because there's very little that even a majority (51%) of people agree on, and that means about half the population is wrong about any given topic. Multiply by the number of topics out there...

[fc417fc802]

You've assumed an uncharitable boundary and then said "see, that's obviously wrong". Well of course it is if the boundary you selected places 90% of humanity on the side of "loss of contact with reality".

So just, you know, don't do that. Select a boundary that places 90% of humanity on the side of "wrong about a number of things but within the bounds of normalcy for the species at large", sprinkle in some caveats about "in the industrialized world" and "for someone with at least a highschool education" and such, and you've got what I was actually describing.

[handoflixue]

My point is that AI psychosis is well within the bounds you're mentioning: yeah, those people are wrong about a number of things, but it's well within the bounds of normalcy for the species at large; especially in the industrialized world; especially for anyone that has at least a high school education.

You can't cherry-pick a definition where "AI psychosis" is meaningfully different from "wrong about a few things" without hitting a huge swath of "within the bounds of normalcy for the species at large" - there's just too many people in the category