[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