I think chatbot addiction is a different issue. I think what people are usually pointing out when they talk about AI psychosis are phenomena where (like the post says) people become delusional, or their delusions seem to be shaped by exposure to the chatbot. My sense is that there's also a related phenomenon where people might become less mentally stable and more likely to take violent actions that they wouldn't have otherwise considered, even if they had the false beliefs that they now have, but idk if that's right

Is it related to them being really obsessive about maska relative to other groups? Are they people who are unusually obsessive about health and negative externalities that people can have on one another?

Based on which stimuli provoke anxiety, sounds autism-adjacent? E.g. for me, eating varied foods doesn't provoke anxiety (which I think is pretty normal) 

Re (1) and (2) I thought humans had created misaligned AI that took over and scanned everyone's brains then sold us to aliens that care about humans in sub-par ways. Hence it being far from the singularity but feeling close from the humans' perspectives, and the origami men going somewhere that seems more organic than machiney

Analyzing the possibility of a country executing a strategic strike on a piece of infrastructure seems extremely difficult from celebrating the destruction of that piece of infrastructure. 

But if my nonfungible traits are her cup of tea, fungible traits don't seem to do much of anything!

In other words, fungible traits are the fallback when a girl doesn't like you very much. They're literally only worth considering if you assume she doesn't like you as a premise.

This seems very contrary to my experience and that of other women I know (and makes little sense in the abstract. Your "fungible" and "non-fungible" traits literally funge against one another in people's assessments; why wouldn't they?  

E.g. I'm a married woman. My husband is my favorite person; I love his "nonfungible traits"; his creativity, his humor, his abiding commitment to making the world better, his refusal to give into motivated cognition, his unerring integrity. 

If he were one standard deviation less attractive, I'd probably never feel physically attracted to him, having sex with him would disgust me, and he'd be one of a bunch of nerds I feel vaguely guilty I'd never consider dating because they're obviously great people. 

Of course most women care about money and comfort and attractiveness (which affect your life in many ways other than social status!) while they also care about good character and humor and EQ... doesn't almost everyone? When you assess a job, doesn't comp and location trade off somewhat against the company culture and how much you expect to like the work? 

I personally often visually react to someone's appearance changing without meaning to (e.g. "wow, you got a haircut!") then feel pressured to compliment it to make the situation less awkward. I expect a lot of other people do this. And basically no one will come up to you and, without prompting critique your appearance. So you will get very positive-slanted feedback when it's unsolicited (and probably when it's solicited too).

Are you counting species we might have driven to extinction a long time ago (e.g. in prehistory when humans first got to continents other than Africa) or just in the less 200 years or something? 

I also don't think "you should always be more empathetic" or "more empathy is always good", I'm just trying to explain what I think is a useful definition of empathy and how to do it that carves reality at its joints. 

(similar to what other people have said, mostly trying to clarify my own thinking not persuade John) I think a more useful kind of empathy is one meta level up. People have different strengths, weaknesses, background, etc (obviously); their struggles usually aren't exactly your struggles, so if you just imagine exactly yourself in their position, it generally won't resonate. 

So I find it more helpful to try to empathize with an abstraction of their problem; if I don't empathize with someone who e.g. has adhd and is often late and makes lots of mistakes on detail-oriented tasks, can I empathize with someone who struggles with something that most people find a lot easier? Probably, there are certainly things I struggle with that others find easy, and that is frustrating and humiliating. Can I empathize with someone who feels like they just can't get ahold of aspects of their life, no matter how hard they try? Who feels like they really "should" be able to do something and in some sense it's "easy", but despite them in some sense putting in a lot of work and creating elaborate systems, they just can't seem to get those issues under control? Absolutely. 

I'm not saying this always works, and in particular it frays when people are weak on things that are closest to my sacred values (e.g. for me, trying in a sincere way to make the world a better place; I feel most disgust and contempt when I feel like people are "not even really trying at all" in that domain). For John, that might be agency around self-improvement. Then I find it helpful to be even more meta, like "how would it feel for something I find beautiful and important to be wholly uninteresting and dry and out-of-reach-feeling? well there are certainly things others find motivating and important and beautiful that I find uninteresting and dry and out of reach... imagine if I were trying to pursue projects loaded on one of those things, it'd feel so boring and exhausting". 

I get the vibe that John thinks more things are more "in people's control" than I do and a lot of other commenters do (probably related to hightly valuing agency). Like yeah, in theory maybe the people on your team could have foreseen the need and learned more ML earlier, but they probably have a lot of fundamental disadvantages relative to you at that (like worse foresight, maybe less interest in ML, maybe skill at teaching themselves these kinds of topics), like in theory you could be better at flirting but you have a lot of disadvantages relative to e.g. George Clooney such that it's unlikely you'll ever reach his effectiveness at doing it. 

I'm not saying everyone is equally skilled if you think about it or all skills are equally important or you shouldn't trying to use keen discernment about people's skills and abilities or some other nonesense. I'm saying I think empathy is more about trying to look for the first opportunity to find common ground and emotional understanding.