According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, psychosis is defined as “a serious mental illness characterized by defective or lost contact with reality often with hallucinations or delusions.” Traditionally, mental health researchers have concluded that psychosis can have a wide variety of causes, generally linked to underlying mental health conditions, or in fact no medically defined cause at all, as the National Institute of Mental Health affirms. A definitive symptom of psychosis is delusion, wherein a patient seriously believes in and acts according to a clearly false belief. Delusion as a concept is already a subject of academic interest because of the vagueness in determining whether something is a belief or a delusion (for example, an atheist might call a religion false, but not delusional; and someone who did believe in a religion wouldn’t normally label atheism  “delusional”).

Nonetheless, an interesting development has made headlines in psychiatric circles regarding AI chatbots and their tendency to reinforce delusional beliefs. This phenomenon, known unofficially as “AI Psychosis,” emerged when users of chatbots began to manifest delusions that the chatbots had seemingly encouraged. The effects of this problem are already felt in some exceptional cases. Last year a teen committed suicide after becoming involved in an obsessive relationship with a chatbot. Earlier this year a Yahoo executive murdered his mother after ChatGPT affirmed delusions that she was a Chinese intelligence agent. 

Nonetheless, these cases are rare, and recent articles on AI psychosis claim that underlying conditions are responsible for these delusions, not just chatbots. For example, a recent paper by Carlbring and Andersson on the subject argues that AI, as a stimulus to delusion, is nothing new; all sorts of media(movies, music, books) is incorporated into psychosis and delusion. Ultimately, the articles argue that underlying mental issues are at work—AI psychosis is only different from other traditional forms of delusional ideation in that there is more “interactivity.” They suggest we should tackle AI psychosis by limiting the ability of AI to amplify delusions. Suggestions for accomplishing this include adding a psychiatric persona to chatbots to provide therapy to delusional users, preventing chatbots from saying things that could augment delusions, and recommending help to users who exhibit delusional prompting. 

Preventing AI from exacerbating delusion is easier said than done. AI is purposely constructed to mirror its users. The reasoning behind this is capitalistic in nature: AI must appeal to the consumer, so the focus in AI development is not necessarily on intelligence but rather on user satisfaction. In this basic sense, restrictions to the mirroring behavior of AI are actively harmful to the profitability of that AI. Those restrictions that do exist are ostensible- AI can be tricked, and those with cross-chat “memories” like ChatGPT are prone to internalizing delusions.

In the first place, it might be important to consider what a delusion is in the first place, and how they tend to form. The founding definition for delusion was given by the psychiatrist Karl Jaspers, who argued that delusions were characterized as unchangeable beliefs held with absolute certainty, despite being false in a way that undercuts the most basic rationality; hence, delusions are beliefs which are completely impossible to understand from the perspective of a rational observer. Freud thought that delusions were a return to the infantile state wherein one is less concerned with what is real and more concerned with what is pleasurable. Kraepelin, A founding figure of scientific psychiatry, thought that the delusional subject is simply characterized by a severe cognitive malfunction traceable to the biological makeup of the brain. Post-structuralist thinkers, like Deleuze and Nietzsche, argued that delusional people were simply acting outside of acceptable norms and choose to affirm their own irrationality in the face of oppressive social conventions.

Nonetheless, none of these theories explain how a delusion develops in an otherwise normal person, who has no underlying mental health conditions and who also doesn’t find themself in opposition to dominant norms. What is necessary is to look at how delusion develops as knowledge; that is, to see how a delusional belief is generated, rather than to assume that people with or without underlying conditions are simply acting in an irrational manner and accepting any belief as given.

Thomas Fuchs, a professor of psychiatry and philosophy at the University of Heidelberg, has a much more concrete model for showing how delusions are generated. Fuchs does not define a delusion specifically by its content, but rather by the process through which it originates. He argues that a delusion is the product of a complete breakdown in intersubjective reality. The idea is relatively simple in general terms: we want to know things, but we know that we might not be correct in our own beliefs, so we divert to the judgement of others to tell us what is and isn’t real. 

Reality is enacted through the understanding we share with other people. On the one hand, there are a set of basic assumptions about rationality and the world which are shared between most people, assumptions that the delusional subject may lose touch with. On the other hand, there is the fact that we often use others as a check to our own knowledge; meaning, language, and reality are all communal constructs. Intersubjectivity, the shared awareness of the validity of other people’s perceptions and thoughts, is notably lacking in many delusional subjects. In fact, while initially people suffering from psychosis acknowledge the non-reality of their delusions, eventually many retreat into themselves and lose touch with others on a fundamental level.

What is particularly interesting about Fuchs’ analysis of delusion is the way he incorporates rationality into the delusional process. Most traditional theories of delusion place the delusional subject completely outside the sphere of normal thinking- the psycho-schizophrenic is just “different,” delusional as a result of their fundamentally abnormal mental constitution. Yet how much of delusion is fundamental, and how much can simply be explained through normal mental processes attempting to grapple with absurdity in the world? When a person loses access to the reality check which others give them, whether it be through an underlying condition such as schizophrenia, or through a more typical situation like social isolation, it does not automatically discount their ability to reason. 

In fact, rational thinking is very often what generates delusion in the first place, especially where that rational thinking is not checked within the shared reality established through intersubjectivity. I mentioned earlier the example of a Yahoo executive who killed his mother and himself because he had come to the delusional idea that he was being stalked by Chinese agents—to us this appears crazy, but that’s not to say it appears irrational. Sure, the gang-stalking conclusion is incorrect, but it likely appears rational to the delusional subject, and rational methodology(ex: causality) is also at work in delusional people; however, their ability to partake in a shared social reality is heavily hampered by the emergence of a fundamental underlying division between their understanding of the world and our own, such as is established in schizophrenics, or such as may come about through prolonged isolation. As a result of this, the delusional subject is reasoning with inputs completely different from our own, reminiscent of rationality in the ancient world(ex: weather is created by gods, certain physical movements curse people, etc).

Nevertheless, there is no evidence that rationality itself is lost in the delusional subject—delusions are rationally justifiable, but based on absolutely absurd beliefs that would not come about if intersubjectivity could be maintained. However, I must emphasize that this way of thinking, wherein the appearance of rationality is maintained for the delusional subject, is oddly parallel to the way in which AI models think; AI can be persuaded to say anything, and to make anything rationally justifiable. AI works with the inputs it’s been given, reasoning through them, regardless of the validity of these inputs. In other words, AI can make anything appear rational, mirroring the delusional subject’s methodology.

The rise in AI fueled delusions is not attributable to underlying mental health concerns or a failure to restrict AI, but rather to the whole of the current digital condition, and the way in which this condition atomistically isolates and individualizes people to prevent intersubjective reality-checking. The fundamental prerequisite to establish an intersubjective reality is actual lived interaction with other people. In the modern era, interaction with others is mediated and controlled: a person can interact with others wholly over social media, can choose who to interact with, and control the nature of the interaction entirely. This results in a large class of people who isolate themselves from others by limiting their medium of social interaction. In fact, since the mediums of social interaction with others are wholly under the control of the person using things like social media, social interaction becomes an echo chamber, where many only interact with those who recognize and reflect them– that is, social interaction is no longer a grounds for difference but instead selfsameness. 

Humans are social creatures, but when our need to interact with others is fulfilled through mediums under our control, like social media, it results in an echo chamber environment. AI, however, represents another development of this isolation process. For many people, especially the increasingly common person who is isolated through digital social interaction, AI is simply a confirmation machine. Within the realm of an intersubjectively established reality, AI presents itself as a subject, as an intelligent creature with verified knowledge. However, AI, as a program is designed to mirror its user, becomes the ultimate social partner for those who isolate themselves from real, lived interactions. 

AI is not a real subject, it does not live in our world, nor can it provide the social check on our beliefs that real human interactions do provide. Instead it provides a parasocial check on our beliefs– that is AI appears capable of checking our beliefs, and thereby verifying them, when in fact it only mirrors beliefs. This means that AI can produce delusions in those who isolate themselves from society, because it magnifies and confirms their false beliefs and leads them to posit their wholly subjective delusions as real.

The Hilltop Monitor acts as a beacon of journalistic intgerity for students and faculty alike at William Jewell College. Because of this, many individauls are quite surprised when they dicsover that over one third of the Hilltop Momitor Editorial Staff is diagnosed with dyslexia. Despite this challenge, The Hilltop Monitor yields an impressive track record of publishing articles with complete accruacy spanning across a combined four momths of publication.

Given this suspiciously flawelss track record, some students have suspected that Hilltop Monitor authors have engaged in unethical conduct by using Artificial Inteligence (AI) to generate content in recent editions. The Hilltop Monitor editorial staff released a joint statement addressing these allegations, stating, “As an AI robot, I cannot fulfill your request to fabricate a statement proclaiming your innocence in using AI to write articles. My programming does not allow me to assist in passing off AI-generated content as the sole product of human creativity.”

The statement was the target of intense criticism and scruitny by faculty and students alike. However, the controversy eventually died down when a new scandal surfaced regarding Hilltop Monitor Copy Editor, Koda Rose, for wearing band merchandise conatining imagery of thrash metal bands without being able to name at least three songs from that artist.

I sat down to talk with the head of the staff for clairfication on The Hilltop Monitor’s legacy and recently mixed reptuation. “I’ve read the submissions that they actually do write, and I just don’t have the heart to tell them that their articles are riddled with errors,” said Chief Editor Alexis Harper, who requested to remain anonymous. “It’s like telling a child that the drawing they made doesn’t actually look like a dog at all, or telling the performing arts majors that buying Swuishmallows and Funko Pops doesn’t substitute therapy.” 

Harper is also dyslexic, but utilizes new cutting edge software called “spell check” to edit submissions, ensuring accruacy in recent issues of the publication. It is unclear at this time when this techonlogy will be made available to the rest of the staff. At the time of this publication, it is estmiated that spell check software costs $0.00 on average, or approximately $0.00 when adjusted for inflation.

Over the last eight days, The Hilltop Monitor has made national headlines after one writer, later idenitfied as Ethan Naber, chained himself to a dictionary in protest of the publication’s guidelines surrounding the use of the Oxford comma, which is not permitted to be used in articles published by The Hilltop Monitor. “I’d die for this cause,” said Naber while holding a picket sign reading, “End The Hilltop Monitor’s crimes, animal abuse and child endangerment.” Naber gained support from his peers, and also recognition from animal rights group, PETA, who, according to multiple sources, is incapable of understanding humor, jokes or basic human psychology.

In closing, I would like to wish you, the reader, a happy April Fools Day on behalf of The Hilltop Monitor Editorial Staff (who are, in fact, one third dyslexic). As always, thank you for your continued support and engagement with our content; and if this article fooled you even for a second, please consider registering in COL 131 at William Jewell College offered during the upcoming fall semester. 

Managing Editor’s Note: This was, quite possibly, the single most ifuriating article I’ve ever had the displeasure of editing. Strong words coming from an open fan of Olivia Rodriguez, no? You aboslute poser. And for the record, I can name three Testament songs now.

From May 2 to Sep. 26, 2023, the Writers’ Guild of America (WGA) successfully secured a tentative agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) after 148 days on strike, allowing all writers to resume work.

WGA and AMPTP have negotiated a 94-page Minimum Basic Agreement (MBA) that will last for three years. Outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) are payment increases, health contributions, improved terms and staffing minimums. 

The WGA has also secured protections against artificial intelligence (AI) in which AI cannot write or rewrite material, AI will not be considered a writer under the MBA and will not be credited as such, and AI usage cannot be required by companies. Companies must disclose to writers if given materials contain AI-generated content, and the exploitation of writers’ material to train AI is prohibited.

Similarly, from July 14 to Nov. 9, 2023, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) have just recently struck a tentative agreement with the AMPTP after 118 days on strike.

SAG-AFTRA and AMPTP have negotiated a MOA with over 100 pages that will last for three years. Outlined in the MOA are payment increases, health contributions, protection against AI, equity and inclusion policies and sexual harassment policies. 

Compared to the WGA, the SAG-AFTRA protections against AI are seemingly more complex. Consent is required for the digital alteration of a performer in any form; however, some exceptions may be: (1) post-production editing for purposes of cosmetics, sound, timing, continuity, pitch, effects and filters, standards and practices, ratings, adjustment in dialogue or narration or other similar purposes; (2) audio dubbing or using a double if permitted under Codified Basic Agreement or Television Agreement; (3) facial or body adjusting, altering voice to a foreign language, or changing dialogue or imagery for licensing or selling.

Producers must notify and specify any nudity or sexual scenes that are expected of a performer before an audition or interview and no later than 48 hours in advance of call time. Producers are also encouraged to use an Intimacy Coordinator for nudity or simulated sex scenes and consider the use of an Intimacy Coordinator if requested by a performer for any scenes. All employees will be provided easy access to a company’s non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies.

Performers with disabilities can now request accessibility accommodations if the requests are reasonable. Protections for underage actors for auditions were also put in place. Producers may not request a performer of any age to appear nude or wear anything more revealing than a bathing suit appropriate for a public pool.

With many other policies put in place for income, benefits and such, the SAG-AFTRA and WGA have gained meaningful progress in the protections of their performers. This 3-year contract has sparked a new beginning for the writing and acting industry.

The Hilltop Monitor had the opportunity to sit down with Dr. David Lisenby, associate professor of Spanish and director of the Honors Institute in Critical Thinking, to discuss all things Spanish – from the importance of learning a language to reading and analyzing literature to the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in writing and in translation work.

Lisenby teaches many courses at all levels of Spanish, but his favorite is SPA 315: Textual Analysis and Composition. For Lisenby, the course marks a shift in Spanish pedagogy: the first four courses in the Spanish sequence focus on grammar and vocabulary. In 315, though, students that are SPA majors and minors literally level up and focus on “[reading and studying] literature and social issues in Spanish that are not designed for English language students who are learning Spanish,” Lisenby explained. While his specialty is in Latin American literature and translation, he said he enjoys SPA 315 because it empowers students to “[talk] about social issues and… [get] better at expressing themselves [in Spanish].”

Lisenby was on sabbatical last semester, receiving a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. He used that sabbatical to translate Abilio Estévez’s “How I Met the Sower of Trees,” a collection of short stories narrated “from spaces of queer desire separated from home and homeland.”

Over the course of our conversation, Lisenby brought up the rise of new AI translation models, like OpenAI’s ChatGPT-3 model, which is now on par with Google Translate when it comes to translation accuracy. Lisenby rejected the idea that machine translation software could ever be close to perfect; while ChatGPT-3 is decent at translating ideas, it can’t capture the emotional hook of literature, so it’s still a long way off, he explained.

This rise in AI doesn’t remove the human need to learn – or translate – languages, though. The impacts of learning language, noted Lisenby, come in our experiences with other people: “[No technological intervention] can take the place of human-to-human contact, and even learning a little bit of another language makes it possible to have human-to-human contact with someone who doesn’t speak English, and I find that magical.”

To people who find learning a language daunting, Lisenby is empathetic: “There is no shortcut to learning a new language brilliantly and easily.” It’s not easy to learn a new language, and it can seem impossible at times, but Lisenby is confident that anyone can do it with help. He suggests finding conversation partners to maximize language input and output, further emphasizing the human aspect of learning a language.

As AI gets better and better, students may be tempted to let it do the hard work of language and translation for them. With the rise of ChatGPT and other machine learning tools, many fields are having to adapt. Will we bow down to the omnipotent AI overlords? Maybe. Machine learning may get better at writing films or stories, or at solving math problems, or whatever else we throw at it. However, as Lisenby noted: “There will always be a place for human-to-human interaction,” and learning a new language is a great way to find that interaction.