That’s not psychosis
Look at this tweet:
I strongly believe there are entire companies right now under heavy AI psychosis and its impossible to have rational conversations about it with them. I can’t name any specific people because they include personal friends I deeply respect, but I worry about how this plays out.
[…]
It’s frightening, because the psychosis folks operate under an almost absolute “MTTR is all you need” mentality: “its fine to ship bugs because the agents will fix them so quickly and at a scale humans can’t do!” We learned in infrastructure that MTTR is great but you can’t yeet resilient systems entirely.
[…]
I sympathise with the worry that tech people are getting overly excited about moving fast and breaking things with LLMs. But that’s not psychosis! Even calling it AI-induced mania would be overselling it. You just disagree with people’s cost-benefit analyses. A human psychiatrist I know in real life suggested you could call it AI hypomania, if you really insist on using a medical term.
This dilution of the meaning of “psychosis” bothers me because it makes it harder to talk about actual psychosis caused or made worse by AI. Psychosis is a real thing with an actual definition, and that definition is not “does stuff that I think is daft”.