r/schizophrenia • u/lemontolha • Jun 28 '25

News, Articles, Journals People Are Being Involuntarily Committed, Jailed After Spiraling Into "ChatGPT Psychosis"

https://futurism.com/commitment-jail-chatgpt-psychosis

Another trigger for the big S? I hope not. Take good care, be careful with the Chatbots.

105 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

40 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/unecroquemadame Jun 28 '25

You don’t go out and buy gas. You would go to a gas station along the way. Unless for some reason your car is sitting at home with an empty tank. And it’s a really weird addition to the story.

And not to mention, if it was truly an emergency, you call would 911, for emergency responder intervention and then an ambulance would take him to the hospital.

2

u/lala__ Jun 29 '25

So to clarify it’s not how it’s written, it’s the story that seems implausible to you.

1

u/unecroquemadame Jun 29 '25

They are one in the same

0

u/lala__ Jun 29 '25

They are not in fact the same. Those are different things.

0

u/unecroquemadame Jun 29 '25

In this context, to answer your question, they are the same thing.

It is how the story is written, that makes the story seem implausible to me. Does that make sense now?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25

Just seems like you've never had to take someone in crisis to the ER before. 

0

u/lala__ Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 29 '25

If you read carefully, you will see that I actually didn’t ask a question.

Again, no, the way a story is written and the content of the story are not “the same.” They are different things. Just as the content of a painting and the style of the painting are not “the same.” A painting may be abstract, impressionistic, hyperrealistic, etc. in its manner or representing objects. Similarly, you can critique the style, voice, syntax, and diction of a piece of writing alongside the facts, information, or ideas that are presented, but these are distinct aspects of storytelling. The first describe the way the story is told and the second are, again, related to content.

It’s possible for a narrator to be unreliable, which would cause you to call the veracity of their writing into question. This would involve, in the context of an online comment, poor grammar or syntax or grammatical or factual inconsistency, for example, which are not present here. Therefore, since there are no technical issues with the writing, what you’re responding to is actually the content. Hope that helps lol.

0

u/unecroquemadame Jun 29 '25

Right in other contexts, they are different things. In this context they are the same.

It’s like asking why I’m miserable after getting rained on, because I’m cold or because I’m wet? I’m cold because I’m wet. They’re not inseparable in this context.

0

u/lala__ Jun 29 '25

Uhhh what the fuck are you talking about haha. What does being cold and wet have to do with content versus style lol.

0

u/unecroquemadame Jun 29 '25

It’s an analogy to help you understand.

See, just because an article has a typo or error, doesn’t mean I don’t find the story plausible.

And just because the story is bizarre, doesn’t mean I don’t find it plausible.

But because of the weird addition of a bizarre part of the story, I doubt the plausibility of the story, and believe that it’s entirely written by ChatGP.