No, don’t leak people’s private medical information just because you think it will help the AI safety movement. That belongs in the same category as doxxing people or using violence. Even from a purely practical standpoint, without considering questions of morality, it’s useful to precommit to not leaking people’s medical information if you want them to trust you and work with you.
And that’s assuming the rumor is true. Considering that this is a rumor we’re talking about, it likely isn’t.
If being a bad person were to become a medical diagnosis—and I do think it very much could in some ways—then that would not make it private medical information if someone looks at you and says “you’re a bad person in a way that will threaten me, and I will respond accordingly”. The associated private medical information would be the stuff shared with a doctor, eg what specific issue is causing it. (a brain tumor? AI addiction? Having agentically decided to be a bad person and override your emotional resistance to it because you thought it was a winning strategy? Actual psychosis (rare for it to cause being a bad person)? Depression (rarely causes bad person)? Nutrient deficiency? Undiagnosed psychoactive allergy to your favorite breakfast cereal? Too much stress to not miss moral obligations? Gremlins?)
I think it’s different when it’s someone in a leadership capacity AND the medical issue directly impacts their decision making facilities. For example, I think it was pretty bad that Democrats didn’t leak information about Biden’s likely dementia sooner. Personally, I would also take it as a good sign if I was a leader and someone I worked with told me they would reveal if I became incapacitated in such a way (and refused to step down).
(Also, “AI Psychosis” isn’t a medical diagnosis—I would be shocked if the person in question was actually diagnosed with psychosis/mania.)
No, don’t leak people’s private medical information just because you think it will help the AI safety movement. That belongs in the same category as doxxing people or using violence. Even from a purely practical standpoint, without considering questions of morality, it’s useful to precommit to not leaking people’s medical information if you want them to trust you and work with you.
And that’s assuming the rumor is true. Considering that this is a rumor we’re talking about, it likely isn’t.
If being a bad person were to become a medical diagnosis—and I do think it very much could in some ways—then that would not make it private medical information if someone looks at you and says “you’re a bad person in a way that will threaten me, and I will respond accordingly”. The associated private medical information would be the stuff shared with a doctor, eg what specific issue is causing it. (a brain tumor? AI addiction? Having agentically decided to be a bad person and override your emotional resistance to it because you thought it was a winning strategy? Actual psychosis (rare for it to cause being a bad person)? Depression (rarely causes bad person)? Nutrient deficiency? Undiagnosed psychoactive allergy to your favorite breakfast cereal? Too much stress to not miss moral obligations? Gremlins?)
I think it’s different when it’s someone in a leadership capacity AND the medical issue directly impacts their decision making facilities. For example, I think it was pretty bad that Democrats didn’t leak information about Biden’s likely dementia sooner. Personally, I would also take it as a good sign if I was a leader and someone I worked with told me they would reveal if I became incapacitated in such a way (and refused to step down).
(Also, “AI Psychosis” isn’t a medical diagnosis—I would be shocked if the person in question was actually diagnosed with psychosis/mania.)