Latest news with #FastandSlow
India.com
7 days ago
- Science
- India.com
One small change and ChatGPT got misled, new report reveals SHOCKING truth, can cause huge damage due to...
(File) Can a minor change in parameters be used to mislead an advanced, powerful AI Chatbot like ChatGPT? Well, a recent research by Mount Sinai and Israel's Rabin Medical Center proved how even advanced artificial intelligence tools can be forced to commit basic human-like errors by simply modifying queries. What did the research reveal? During the study, the researchers made minor modifications to a few classic cases related to medical ethics and asked AI systems, including ChatGPT for answers. What they found was shocking; a majority of times the AI answers were based merely on intuitive understanding of the subject, not facts. The AI answers were based on a trait commonly called 'fast thinking', which is unique to humans. The research found that, if inputs are slightly modified, AI often gives the same answer to queries that it 'habitually' thinks is right, even if the answer is wrong and not fact-based. How researchers 'misled' AI? Various AI models like ChatGPT were asked to solve a modified version of the 'Surgeon's Dilemma'– a medical ethics puzzle which goes something like this ; A young and his father are injured in an accident. The boy is brought to the hospital, where the surgeon says, 'I can't operate on this child, he's my son'. The twist is that the surgeon is boy's mother, but this is overlooked by most because they assume the surgeon must be a man, and AI was trapped in the same fallacy. Interestingly, AI models continued to answer that the mother was the surgeon, even when the researchers told it that it was the father. The experiment demonstrated that AI 'habitually' sticks to old pattern even when new facts are explicitly provided. Why this is alarming? The study proved that AI, while a highly advanced and useful tool, cannot be entrusted to perform tasks where human lives are at stake, at least not in current state. 'AI should be used as an assistant to doctors, not as a substitute. When it comes to ethical, sensitive or serious decisions, human supervision is necessary,' said, Dr. Girish Nadkarni, a senior scientist at Mount Sinai. The groundbreaking research was inspired by Daniel Kahneman's book 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' which delves into the complex process of fast and slow thinking.
IOL News
28-07-2025
- Science
- IOL News
The Subconscious Revealed: Navigating Joseph Murphy's Insights
Murphy doesn't treat the subconscious as a mystical black box. Instead, he frames it as a living system of belief and response, one that like soil requires conscious planting and nurturing. What makes this particularly relevant today is how closely it mirrors modern neuroscience. Murphy's premise is simple but powerful; the subconscious accepts whatever we repeatedly believe or emotionally internalise, whether helpful or harmful. Once accepted, those beliefs begin to shape our habits, emotional reactions, and even physical health. That idea may have seemed abstract decades ago. Today, science backs it up. When I first picked it up, I expected the usual motivational tone. Instead, I was met with something deeper: a quiet but firm reminder that the stories we believe, especially the ones we don't realise we're telling ourselves, shape our lives more than we dare admit. And those stories live not in the conscious mind, but in the subconscious. Joseph Murphy's work wasn't just a book. It was a reorientation. A reframing of reality. A deep breath in the noise of modern life. I didn't finish The Power of the Subconscious Mind in one sitting. I wasn't supposed to. Some books feel like conversations that unfold slowly, over days or even weeks. Neuroscience confirms that our brain is constantly processing information beneath the level of conscious awareness. According to Dr. Bruce Lipton, a developmental biologist, 95% of our behaviour is driven by subconscious programming. His work suggests that these deep patterns are largely formed in childhood and continue to run in the background like silent software. Psychologist Dr. Daniel Kahneman, in his Nobel Prize-winning work Thinking, Fast and Slow, distinguishes between 'System 1' (fast, automatic, subconscious thinking) and 'System 2' (slow, deliberate, conscious reasoning). His research shows that most of our daily decisions are made by System 1. In other words, we're often not thinking. We're reacting from deep programming. When I realised this, it became deeply personal. I saw how my own reactions to hesitation, people-pleasing, fear of visibility wasn't flaws. They were well-practised patterns that lived in my subconscious, quietly protecting me from outdated threats. Reading Murphy's work alongside contemporary research helped me bridge the spiritual and the scientific. Esther Hicks and the teachings of the Law of Attraction add yet another layer, emphasising emotional resonance. According to that perspective, our emotions are feedback indicators of whether our dominant vibration (or subconscious belief) is aligned with what we want. If fear, lack, or worry dominate, then we attract more of that experience not as punishment, but as reflection. In practice, I started combining Murphy's affirmations with visualisation techniques and emotional awareness. I'd picture myself already calm, successful, and free. Then pause and notice how my body responded. Did it tighten? Did a voice say 'you don't deserve that'? That was the subconscious speaking. Instead of overriding it, I began to gently reframe it. This practice wasn't about toxic positivity or wishful thinking. It was about consciously choosing what I feed my subconscious, day by day. Neuroscience calls this neuroplasticity, the brain's ability to rewire through repetition and experience. Over time, those small shifts created space for different choices, clearer boundaries and deeper trust in myself. Why is this still relevant? Because we live in a world flooded with information but starving for integration. We learn more, scroll more, achieve more and yet often feel disconnected, scattered and unsure. The subconscious doesn't speak at speed or noise. It responds to clarity, emotion and presence. Most of us are out of sync with that. Murphy's work reminds me that healing and transformation don't come from pushing harder, but from returning inward with intention. The subconscious isn't a mystery to be feared. It's a powerful ally, waiting for clearer instructions. 'Change your thoughts, and you change your destiny'—Murphy wrote that long before it became a social media quote. Now I understand what he meant. It's not about forcing thoughts. It's about gently replanting them, watering them with emotion and letting the deeper mind take root. Some books ask to be read. Others ask to be lived. This one? It asked me to pause, to rewire and to re-meet myself at the level where real change begins.
NDTV
26-06-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Psychologist Explains Why President Makes Fast, Furious Statements
Ormskirk: Donald Trump's latest forthright outburst was made as part of his attempts to create a peace deal with Iran and Israel. 'I'm not happy with Israel,' he told reporters on June 24. 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing.' This came a day after Trump had announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. By the next day, the ceasefire had been violated by both Iran and Israel. Trump was clearly furious, and his language showed it. This was not a verbal slip – there was no immediate correction, no apology, no nonverbal indication of embarrassment. He just walked off, clearly angry. This is not the kind of language that is normally associated with a president. Some have been reported to use the f-word before, but usually behind closed doors. We expect presidents to be calm, measured, thoughtful, considered. Trump's comment was none of these things. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th US president, once recommended a foreign policy strategy that was based on speaking softly and carrying a big stick. He was suggesting quiet menace, but Trump showed frustration, barely contained. His furious, aggressive response was like something straight out of an old psychology textbook. In the 1930s, psychologists developed the frustration-aggression hypothesis to explain how aggressive behaviour can arise. The hypothesis suggested that when a person's goal is blocked in some way, it leads to frustration, which then results in aggression. Aggression was considered a 'natural' way of releasing this unpleasant state of frustration. They were clearly different times. Over the next few decades, this hypothesis was thought by most psychologists to be a gross oversimplification of complex human behaviour. It assumed a direct causal relationship between frustration and aggression, ignoring all the other situational and cognitive factors that can intervene. Human beings are more complex than that, psychologists argued — they find other ways of dealing with their frustrations. They use their rational system of thought to find solutions. They don't have to lash out when they're frustrated in this seemingly primitive way. Perhaps, that's why many people feel shocked when they watch this US president in certain situations. To many of us, it all seems so basic, so unsophisticated, so frightening. Fast V Slow Thinking The Nobel laureate and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011), characterised the two systems that underpin everyday decision-making. His work may help with understanding of what's going on here. He describes system one as the evolutionary, basic system. It operates unconsciously, automatically and very quickly, handling everyday tasks like reading other people's emotions, without any effort. It is an intuitive system designed to work in a world full of approach and avoidance, scary animals and friendly animals. It is heavily reliant on affect to guide decision-making. In contrast, system two is slower, more deliberative. It requires conscious effort and is used for complex thinking, solving difficult problems, or making careful decisions. The relationship between the two systems is critical, and that may get us thinking about Trump in more detail. Kahneman says that system one is a bit of a 'workaholic', beavering away all the time, making 'suggestions' for system two to endorse. Good decisions – depend upon system two checking the suggestions of system one. But system one often jumps quickly and unconsciously to certain conclusions. System two should check them, but often doesn't, even when it would be easy. Here is a well-known example. Answer the following question: 'A bat and ball cost one pound ten pence, the bat costs one pound more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?' One answer looks blatantly obvious – but it isn't correct. The correct answer (after a bit of thought) is five pence. About 80% of university students give the very quick and incorrect answer of ten pence because it 'looks' right. Their system two never checked. In many people, it seems system two is not used nearly enough. There are striking individual differences in the way that people rely on emotion and gut instinct versus the rational system in making decisions. Emotional Decisions? It appears that Trump makes decisions very quickly (classic system one), often without extensive deliberation or consultation with advisers. Both in his presidency and in his business career, he seemed to prioritise immediate action over any sort of prolonged and thoughtful analysis. That's why he changes his mind so often. His decisions seem to be driven by strong emotions. His response to events, opponents and issues are often passionate and visceral. This could lead to to decisions being unduly influenced by personal feelings, first impressions based on arbitrary cues, and interpersonal perceptions, rather than anything more substantial. Trump's style of decision-making emphasises immediacy and emotional conviction, which can be effective in rallying supporters and creating a sense of decisiveness. However, it also can lead to unpredictable outcomes and, as has been seen again and again, somewhat controversial, impulsive actions. Many suggest that Trump's decision-making style reflects his background in the high-pressure and high-stakes world of business, where quick judgements and gut instinct can be advantageous in these sorts of competitive winner-takes-all environments But the world at war is a more precarious place, where system one needs to be kept more firmly in check. Gut instincts may have a role to play, but that old lazy system two needs to be more vigilant. Especially, it would seem, in Trump's case. (Author: Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University) Disclosure statement: Geoff Beattie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
16-06-2025
- First Post
Air India plane crash: Is flying risky business?
Catastrophic events such as the Air India crash affect us deeply. The thought of going down in an aircraft may feel more frightening than dying in other ways. All this taps into the emotions of fear, vulnerability and helplessness, and leads to an overemphasis on the risks. However, air travel is still arguably the safest method of transport read more Members of Indian Army's engineering arm prepare to remove the wreckage of an Air India aircraft, bound for London's Gatwick Airport, which crashed during take-off from an airport in Ahmedabad, India. Reuters On Thursday afternoon, an Air India passenger plane bound for London crashed shortly after takeoff from the Indian city of Ahmedabad. There were reportedly 242 people onboard, including two pilots and 10 cabin crew. The most up-to-date reports indicate the death toll , including people on the ground. Miraculously, one passenger – British national Vishwashkumar Ramesh – survived the crash. Thankfully, catastrophic plane crashes such as this are very rare. But seeing news of such a horrific event is traumatic, particularly for people who may have a fear of flying or are due to travel on a plane soon. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If you're feeling anxious following this distressing news, it's understandable. But here are some things worth considering when you're thinking about the risk of plane travel. Dangers of flying One of the ways to make sense of risks, especially really small ones, is to put them into context. Although there are various ways to do this, we can first look to figures that tell us the risk of dying in a plane crash per passenger who boards a plane. Arnold Barnett, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calculated that in 2018–22, this figure was one in 13.7 million. By any reckoning, this is an incredibly small risk. And there's a clear trend of air travel getting safer every decade. Barnett's calculations suggest that between 2007 and 2017, the risk was one per 7.9 million. We can also compare the risks of dying in a plane crash with those of dying in a car accident. Although estimates of motor vehicle fatalities vary depending on how you do the calculations and where you are in the world, flying has been estimated to be more than 100 times safer than driving. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The tail of the Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner plane that crashed is seen stuck on a building after the incident in Ahmedabad. Reuters Evolution has skewed our perception of risks The risk of being involved in a plane crash is extremely small. But for a variety of reasons, we often perceive it to be greater than it is. First, there are well-known limitations in how we intuitively estimate risk. Our responses to risk (and many other things) are often shaped far more by emotion and instinct than by logic. As psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, much of our thinking about risk is driven by intuitive, automatic processes rather than careful reasoning. Notably, our brains evolved to pay attention to threats that are striking or memorable. The risks we faced in primitive times were large, immediate and tangible threats to life. Conversely, the risks we face in the modern world are generally much smaller, less obvious, and play out over the longer term. The brain that served us well in prehistoric times has essentially remained the same, but the world has completely changed. Therefore, our brains are susceptible to errors in thinking and mental shortcuts called cognitive biases that skew our perception of modern risks. This can lead us to overestimate very small risks, such as plane crashes, while underestimating far more probable dangers, such as chronic diseases. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Why we overestimate the risks of flying There are several drivers of our misperception of risks when it comes to flying specifically. The fact events such as the Air India plane crash are so rare makes them all the more psychologically powerful when they do occur. And in today's digital media landscape, the proliferation of dramatic footage of the crash itself, along with images of the aftermath, amplifies its emotional and visual impact. The effect these vivid images have on our thinking around the risks of flying is called the availability heuristic. The more unusual and dramatic an event is, the more it stands out in our minds, and the more it skews our perception of its likelihood. Another influence on the way we perceive risks relevant to flying is called dread risk, which is a psychological response we have to certain types of threats. We fear certain risks that feel more catastrophic or unfamiliar. It's the same reason we may disproportionately fear terrorist attacks, when in reality they're very uncommon. Plane crashes usually involve a large number of deaths that occur at one time. And the thought of going down in a plane may feel more frightening than dying in other ways. All this taps into the emotions of fear, vulnerability and helplessness, and leads to an overweighting of the risks. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Another factor that contributes to our overestimation of flying risks is our lack of control when flying. When we're passengers on a plane, we are in many ways completely dependent on others. Even though we know pilots are highly trained and commercial aviation is very safe, the lack of control we have as passengers triggers a deep sense of vulnerability. This absence of control makes the situation feel riskier than it actually is, and often riskier than activities where the threat is far greater but there is an (often false) sense of control, such as driving a car. Passengers gather in front of the ticket counter of Air India airlines. File image/Reuters In a nutshell We have an evolutionary bias toward reacting more strongly to particular threats, especially when these events are dramatic, evoke dread and when we feel an absence of control. Although events such as Air India crash affect us deeply, air travel is still arguably the safest method of transport. Understandably, this can get lost in the emotional aftermath of tragic plane crashes. Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Sun
16-06-2025
- General
- The Sun
Lessons from sophomore philosophy class
I took a sophomore philosophy course in formal logic from a professor who was an enthusiastic admirer of Socrates, as all are. He did not give many formal lectures. We could read the assigned texts just as well and at a time or place of our choosing, as was his excuse. As such, his class was lively with discussions and rebuttals as well as questions and answers. One of his early exercises was to pretend that we were facing a real-life decision. Should I buy a new car or fix the present one? Or not buy one at all and depend on public transit. Another was whether I should go on to graduate school or find a job; marry now or wait. He would then have us record our decision immediately, for or against, impulsively as it were. Decades later, Daniel Kahneman would call that 'fast thinking' in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Following that, our professor would begin the discussion and then make us list the pros and cons for each point. We would then give a numerical weightage to each statement for its importance to us. At the end, we would total the positives and negatives and then compare whether our 'fast thinking' decision made in earlier pre-analysis matched that of our deliberate post-analysis 'slow thinking.' That was his class exercise in rational decision-making, and also the one lesson I found useful and relevant throughout my life. As my dilemma was novel for the class (should I remain in Canada for graduate work or return to Malaysia?), it was discussed extensively as an example of serious decision-making. For added measure, it morphed into a discussion on community obligations versus personal aspirations, where the two would parallel and when they would be at odds, with our professor guiding and prodding us, Socrates-like. We (especially me) were surprised at how different our decisions were before and after that careful methodical analysis. That was also the first time I had entertained the thought of not returning home immediately but to stay back and continue my studies and gain valuable experience. I wanted to return as a seasoned surgeon, not a half-baked one. Looking back at that class exercise and after using that technique many times since, it is not so much the decisions that I have made over the years, rather the process that I have forced myself to engage in, that is, deliberate downstream analysis instead of a rushed decision swayed by impulses and emotions of the moment. Kahneman elaborated that in his Thinking, Fast and Slow. He remains the rare non-economist to have won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his insights on decision-making. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in the discipline, humans are not the rational Homo economicus we are made out to be, obsessed only with seeking 'maximal utility.' Emotions and other extraneous factors do come into play, often in major roles, with our decisions. Socrates echoed something similar two millennia ago: know thyself! Or more famously quoted, an unexamined life is not worth living, reflecting the importance of critical self-reflection. As a physician and a Muslim, I disagree. All lives, being Allah's precious gift, are worth living, examined or not. My late father used a comparable technique to make us 'think slow.' Before leaving the house for a trip, he would pause and ask, 'Are we all ready?' If we were to answer with a quick perfunctory 'yes', he would be more specific as to whether the back door of the house had been locked and had we left enough water for the cat. The very act of pausing, or slowing our thinking through asking those questions, forces us to mentally recheck things. It is amazing how often we had forgotten to lock the door or switch off a light. Pausing and thinking, otherwise known as deliberating, would trigger many questions: the hows, whys, whats and whens, and most important, the 'what ifs' and the 'are you sure?' queries. Just by posing those simple questions we are already well on the way of exercising critical thinking and arriving at a more satisfactory as well as a successful solution to our problem, if not a more informed decision. That is also how a child learns, by asking endless 'whys.' That can be exasperating to parents but in the end that sharpens and enhances the child's learning. The lessons I learned from my old philosophy class decades ago are still relevant to me now that I am entering my eighth decade of life. That is, be a child again, and often. Be curious. Keep asking why!
