61
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 55 points 2 months ago

Huge Study

*Looks inside

this latest study examined the chat logs of 19 real users of chatbots — primarily OpenAI’s ChatGPT — who reported experiencing psychological harm as a result of their chatbot use.

Pretty small sample size despite being a large dataset that they pulled from, its still the dataset of just 19 people.

AI sucks in a lot of ways sure, but this feels like fud.

[-] XLE@piefed.social 15 points 2 months ago

The hugeness is probably

391, 562 messages across 4,761 different conversations

That's a lot of messages

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

If that's only 19 users, that's around 250 conversations per user 🤔

[-] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 5 points 2 months ago

Thanks, you saved me a click 😐

[-] TheBlackLounge@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

How big do you think the population of people with AI delusion is? Why can't 19 be a representative sample? Why is that not enough to make statements like "after the user expresses romantic interest in the chatbot, the chatbot is 7.4x more likely to express romantic interest in the next three messages, and 3.9x more likely to claim or imply sentience in the next three messages." when all 19 users expressed romantic interest?

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I wonder if the headline was written by an AI

[-] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I remember reading my old states book that said a minimum of 30 points needed for normal distribution. Also typically these small sets about proof of concept, so yeah you still got a point.

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

It's about 300 samples for an estimate of the distribution with a 95% confidence iirc. That's assuming the samples are representative (unbiased) and 95% confidence doesn't mean it's within 95% of reality, but that 5% of tests run in such a way would be expected to be inaccurate (and there's no way of knowing for sure which one this particular sample is because even a meta study will have such an error rate, though you can increase the confidence with more samples or studies, just never to 100% unless you study every possible sample, including future ones).

[-] TheBlackLounge@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

That doesn't make sense. What if your population is only 100?

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago
[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

fud: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. A tactic for denigrating a thing, usually by implication of hypothetical or exaggerated harms, often in vague language that is either tautological or not falsifiable.

[-] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 months ago

Are you unironically saying “fud”

[-] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Where are you hearing it so much? (And ideally can you describe it in a little more detail than saying it's crypto bros again?)

[-] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Crypto bros are infamous for describing any criticism as FUD, no matter the criticism. It's like a verbal tic. Here are some examples from the past couple days on the premiere Bitcoin social network:

When all this FUD ends and Bitcoin goes 🚀

Quantum FUD is at ATH

FUD Busters [NFT]

Flokicoin is built to last... Don't follow the FUD.

[-] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 3 points 2 months ago

The term FUD has been around longer & broader than that. But thanks for the explanation.

[-] XLE@piefed.social 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I have no argument there, the phrase was definitely not created by them, it's just been beaten to death by them.

They've also overused a bunch of ancient and unfunny memes well past their expiration dates, and universally adopted a collection of depressingly dull and incorrect slogans. "FUD" is just the one that has interesting meaning outside their sad sphere.

[-] architect@thelemmy.club 0 points 1 month ago

No one follows those losers enough to know that except you. Apparently.

[-] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago

This is weirdly passive-aggressive. What are you trying to imply, that everyone who knows something you don't like is bad, regardless of why?

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 month ago

Expecting someone who doesn't follow cryptobro spaces to associate the term FUD with cryptobros and therefore stop using it is... kinda ignorant.

this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
61 points (95.5% liked)

Technology

84941 readers
669 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS