this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
855 points (99.7% liked)

Games

50616 readers
690 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Rules

1. Submissions have to be related to games

Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.

This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.

2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.

We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.

3. No excessive self-promotion

Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.

This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.

4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.

We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.

5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.

No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.

6. No linking to piracy

Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.

We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.

Authorized Regular Threads

Related communities

PM a mod to add your own

Video games

Generic

Help and suggestions

By platform

By type

By games

Language specific

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gap@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Or they're lying for money rather than suffering from a mental condition.

[–] angband@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

https://dangoyal.substack.com/p/the-neuroscience-of-greed

Greed is a symptom of possibly many mental conditions. You're all over the place. All these things you're arguing against are well established ideas, both in common experience and the psychological community.

You also seem to be using darvo.

[–] Gap@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

What is darvo?

Edit: reading the article it seems my way of thinking was indeed a bit simple minded

Still I would like to argue the point that AI doesn't reveal psychosis, it develops it.

[–] angband@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

That's potato/potahto when it comes to mental illness. Without the tendency, it won't develop. AI, because it embodies the potential to replace workers, accelerates the whole process. Making management not just look more psychotic, but become more psychotic, or at least be further down the path.

Because you can't be horrible to others without feeling bad, no matter who you are. And how well you feel factors intimately into the intensity of mental illness.

To add more, if they weren't greedy and salivating over giving their workers a shove out the door, they would sanely evaluate what AI brings to the table before upending all their business. They are all obviously unhinged and all the AI did for them was let them act the way they have wanted to basically forever.

AI might feed their disease, but it was already there, and it didn't hallucinate them into psychosis - they have always been right on the edge.

The age old story of labor vs. capital.

[–] Gap@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

"AI might feed their disease, but it was already there, and it didn’t hallucinate them into psychosis - they have always been right on the edge."

Is a contradiction. Being on the edge of psychosis is not the same as being in one. Within this part you both claim that AI doesn't hallucinate them into psychosis because they were already on the edge.

So your argument is "AI doesn't hallucinate people into psychosis it just feeds into it and pushes them over the edge"

Which is exactly what hallucinating someone into psychosis means.

Why are you defending AI?

[–] angband@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You are going to ridiculous lengths to be a troll.

[–] Gap@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Am I?

Cuz the way it looks to me we're both simply trying to discuss something different.

Where the point I'm trying to get across is: "If you lay the blame solely on the people getting psychosis then you're actively covering up the harm AI can do" With this in mind: when I read your comments your point is interpreted as: "Psychosis is something that's guaranteed to happen because you're born with it, AI doesn't influence it"

Whereas the point you're trying to make is probably more in line with "AI didn't suddenly make CEO's greedier, they already were and blaming AI for that rather than capitalism, is bad"

The problem then lies within the expectation of how discussions on the internet go. By going into the "I need to win" mindset which the internet comments are famous for. Its easy to fall into the mindset of being opponents rather than 2 people trying to convey what they think is important. I believe we both entered this mindset somewhere through the argument.

Look, I can't know what you find important because you've ignored my questions and instead opted to attack my (sometimes shaky) arguments instead. Which is fair but this doesn't help in opening the conversation to new perspectives. It more or less turns it into a debate instead.

This time however its clear you've given up on trying to communicate your point. Which is a shame because I was trying to understand it. I even think I'll be able to if you give me context to your thought process similarly as to how I just tried.