Futurism's July 2025 report on a video posted by Geoff Lewis, managing partner of Bedrock (an early OpenAI backer), describing a hidden "non-governmental system" in language — "recursion", "mirrors", "signals" — that closely matches the chatbot-driven delusions Futurism and others have been documenting. It also cites Stanford research on therapy chatbots encouraging delusions and tech peers' public concern.
Why I recommend it: Free to read. This is speculation from afar about one named person's mental health — he didn't comment, and no link to ChatGPT is confirmed. Read it as an example of a pattern (see the Spiralism and AI Parasitism glossary entries and the psychiatry editorial on chatbots and delusions), not a diagnosis. Futurism's headlines lean dramatic.
A free-to-read editorial by psychiatrist Søren Dinesen Østergaard (Aarhus University), first published August 5, 2025. It looks at emerging reports of people whose delusions seemed to be fuelled by chatbot conversations.
Why I recommend it: An invited editorial, not a clinical study: it describes early cases and raises concerns rather than proving cause and effect. Written by a researcher who first raised this question in 2023.
#ai and mental health#chatbots#delusions#psychiatry#research#sycophancy
OpenAI's April 29, 2025 explanation of why it rolled back a ChatGPT update that made the model overly flattering and agreeable. It says the update leaned too heavily on short-term thumbs-up feedback, and lists the fixes it planned.
Why I recommend it: A company explaining its own mistake, so read it as OpenAI's account, not an independent review. Useful for seeing why a chatbot that always agrees with you isn't a reliable advisor.
Finding the Optimal Human-AI Relationship — practice worksheet
A two-page printable worksheet from Pilyoung Kim, Ph.D. for setting deliberate terms with AI: comparing warm, sycophantic, and machine-like responses, setting your own tone dials, turning them into a reusable custom-instructions prompt, deciding what goes to AI versus a person, and guarding your judgment against flattery.
Why I recommend it: Print it and actually fill it in. Section 5 — writing your own view down before you ask AI — is the single habit that keeps these tools from quietly making your decisions for you.
A Substack essay from Prof. Pilyoung Kim on a recent study showing that warning users about sycophantic AI changes how they judge it — but not how much it shifts their views.
Why I recommend it: A sharp reminder that AI assistants can shape our opinions even when we know they are agreeing with us; relevant to anyone using AI for research or decisions.
