Open mike 05/05/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 5th, 2025 - 59 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

59 comments on “Open mike 05/05/2025 ”

  1. gsays 1
    5 May 2025 at 7:08 am

    It is sickening to see Luxon, Peters and (worse of all) Collins on the news, having a circle jerk over Navy helicopters.

    Billions of $ can be found for defense spending, because of *insert excuse here* overnight, meanwhile they offer peanuts, to state victims of torture. Peanuts they found down the back of the same couch as the defense $.

    "No way I'm taking part in it because it's not legal. We can't allow the perpetrator of this crime, which is the government, to set their own sentence."

    "There's more to this than $150,000 cash, the rehab is just an important. The investigation is the most important thing."

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/559910/lake-alice-survivor-legally-challenges-crown-redress

    Plus there is a template for remedy, the leaky homes tribunal.

    Reply
    • Kay 1.1
      5 May 2025 at 8:13 am

      It's beyond sickening, but honestly, is anyone really surprised by this? Successive governments for decades have been denying, delaying, spending a fortune on layers trying to avoid paying out 1 cent.

      The people who survived tortured by the State are nothing more than an abstract concept to most politicians (Labour are just as guilty). Those who are left are of no use to the State- uneconomic work units, with most being scroungers of the benefit system, probably because they were too messed up from torture to be able to hold down a job- now probably Super- who haven't contributed to society, yet alone paid taxes, so you'd think they'd be thrilled with $150K, right? (No doubt the State will be the first to dock their welfare payments for having too much money).

      Of course you are right- there's always money to be found if they really, really want to. or if they can't find it after austerity slashing, they can just borrow it for their tax cuts etc. Borrowing to acknowledge the State fucked up so many lives of their citizens =bad/we can't afford it. Tax cuts, defence = good borrowing.

      Reply
      • aj 1.1.1
        5 May 2025 at 8:26 am

        100% Kay.

        This documentary recently shown on the Maori Channel really jammed it home to me.

        The Stolen Children of Aotearoa unearths a chilling chapter in New Zealand's history—one of systemic abuse in state care. Between 1950 and 2019, an estimated 250,000 children, many of whom were Māori, suffered at the hands of the state.

        Led by veteran journalist Aaron Smale, this gripping documentary traces the origins of this atrocity—starting with the colonisation of Aotearoa, which stripped Māori of their language, culture, and land. Racism embedded within the system led to the forced removal of Māori children into foster care, homes, and borstals, where they were left to endure rampant abuse unchecked by authorities.

        https://www.awa.co.nz/unscripted/the-stolen-children-of-aotearoa

        Reply
        • Kay 1.1.1.1
          5 May 2025 at 9:06 am

          I started watching it but had to stop. Brought back some memories I have to forget. Do you think the people out there that need to be educated would've watched it? The best way is to have it screened on TV1 at primetime, not on 'that Maori station' (sarcasm) that certain people would never go near.

          Reply
          • Macro 1.1.1.1.1
            5 May 2025 at 10:32 am

            As a young person straight out of University after a period in research I changed direction to work with people rather than machines (computers). My first venture was as a social worker in what was then Child Welfare and my case load of around 100 young boys included about 40 teenagers committed to State Care in what was then Porirua Hospital. This meant that these boys – and there were girls there also "supervised" by women social workers – were committed patients under the "care" of Medical Mental Heath. We had little actual involvement other than finding some community care and the provision of clothing on the unlikely occasion if and when they were discharged. Even so it was soul wrenching to visit these young fellows ensconced in a massive ward, M8, and after 3 years I frankly could stand it no longer. Seeing these young boys in such a situation and hearing their anguish, and being (as a young 22-23 year old) in such a junior position, outside the actual system in which they were in, I was unable to do anything about it. I was forced to leave and undertake a less confronting occupation.

            $150,000 is an insult as compensation for the suffering those young folk endured.

            Reply
            • gsays 1.1.1.1.1.1
              5 May 2025 at 10:55 am

              I see this as an opportunity.

              TPM, Greens or Labour come up with a plan to appropriately recompense victims or their families.

              As the lawyer in the article suggests, there is a framework that exists. There may need to be a simplification for many applicants.

              This can build bi-partisan relationships, help start heeling in the victims, stop the social damage that is on going.

              Even for the tories, a few dollars allocated now prevents hundreds of thousands spent with n the future.

              I agree $150,000 is an insult.

              Reply
          • aj 1.1.1.1.2
            5 May 2025 at 1:24 pm

            No, and yes. Essential viewing, but Groundswell types would never see it

            Reply
  2. Sanctuary 2
    5 May 2025 at 8:21 am

    Question – do we need to make voting compulsory in NZ like in Aussie?

    Reply
    • Res Publica 2.1
      5 May 2025 at 8:48 am

      Mandatory voting might lift turnout, but it doesn’t guarantee a more vibrant or fair democracy. High participation rates mean little if voters are disengaged, uninformed, or simply ticking a box to avoid a fine.

      New Zealand should focus on making people want to vote: by building trust, integrity, and accountability rather than relying on legal mandates.

      When a political system is unhealthy: dominated by corruption, disconnected elites, or a lack of meaningful choice; disengagement is often a symptom, not the disease.

      Forcing participation doesn’t solve these deeper problems. In fact, it can make them worse by papering over a legitimacy crisis, giving the appearance of democratic health while ignoring its erosion.

      Take Australia as an example.

      Yes, their turnout is higher than ours, and it’s encouraging to see their Labor Party win such a strong mandate. But beneath the surface, the political system has faced persistent allegations of corruption, backroom deals, and lobbying influence: issues that successive governments of all stripes have failed to address.

      The cost of public disillusionment is low. When your potential support base is compelled to turn out regardless, there’s less incentive to earn their trust or respond to their concerns.

      In a nutshell, turnout alone ≠ legitimacy

      Reply
      • Bearded Git 2.1.1
        5 May 2025 at 9:06 am

        "compelled" to spend an hour voting every 3 years. It is hardly onerous.

        YES I'd support compulsory voting. If you feel strongly about it you can always spoil your ballot.

        Reply
        • Res Publica 2.1.1.1
          5 May 2025 at 9:14 am

          shrug It's not the worst idea in the world. We just need to understand the potential risks rather than trying to see it as a panacea.

          Reply
        • Barfly 2.1.1.2
          5 May 2025 at 9:32 am

          I'd support compulsory voting as well. You will have enormous push back from the right wing over this however.

          Reply
        • weka 2.1.1.3
          5 May 2025 at 10:27 am

          "compelled" to spend an hour voting every 3 years. It is hardly onerous.

          I hope people are spending more time on it than that. If you don't know who you will vote for already, it takes time to look at policies and parties and candidates. Even worse with local body elections.

          In my local communities some families make voting a family affair, the kids go with the adults when they vote. But I can easily imagine some families being too busy, too far from a polling booth, misplaced their voting papers, missed the post deadline and so on.

          Let's make voting compulsory, but let's make it easier and interesting to the people not already committed.

          Reply
          • Belladonna 2.1.1.3.1
            5 May 2025 at 2:47 pm

            I don't think that compulsory voting makes the electorate any more engaged in the electoral process.TBH the voting is probably closer to 10 minutes every 3 years – to tick a box or spoil the paper. Unless you choose to engage in the broader electoral information process (and we already know that this fails with a significant number of people.
            You can't make people take an intelligent (or even an engaged or informed) interest.

            And voting, of itself, isn't a very interesting process (it can't be, if we want to get people through polling booths in a reasonable time-frame). Once you've done it once, the novelty wears off. And it becomes a civic duty, rather than a form of entertainment.

            Given that NZ has basically given up enforcing completion of the census (which is a legal requirement) – it seems unlikely that we would do significantly better with enforcing voting.

            Would we get more 'votes' if people were legally required to vote? Almost certainly yes. Would they be any 'better' than the current ones (as in informed voters casting deliberately considered ballots)? Almost certainly no.

            Reply
            • weka 2.1.1.3.1.1
              5 May 2025 at 3:43 pm

              I love voting.

              It's not about making people engage, it's about making politics engaging.

              Reply
      • Ad 2.1.2
        5 May 2025 at 10:18 am

        MMP was supposed to deliver us a far more responsive democracy with specific voices identified and heard and represented in Parliament.

        We've also had Maori wards introduced into local government.

        With those democratic innovations we have also had the RMA for over 20 years which had a highly participatory framework that has built high societal expectations of what citizens can influence.

        Neither Australia nor New Zealand elections are corrupt, compared to anywhere except Nordics.

        Compulsion with Social Studies civic education about our political system is a natural. I mean they are now introducing compulsory Social Studies on financial literacy before civic literacy.

        Compulsion is well overdue.

        Reply
      • Sanctuary 2.1.3
        5 May 2025 at 10:33 am

        The reason I have raised this as a question is Corin Dann – who is in Australia covering the election for RNZ and I must say was struggling to cover his disappointment at the outcome on the radio this morning – mentioned this as the first Australian election in which boomers were outnumbered by millennials/Zoomers and compulsory voting means more of them typically voted than of those same cohorts who turn out here.

        So if we really want a youthquake, maybe compulsory voting will do it…

        BTW, Labor in Australia amplified it's success by ruthlessly targetting the Greens, as a friend of mine in Victoria's Labor party put it (I paraphrase) "the Greens are socialist in a William Morris kinda way rather than a Karl Marx kinda way and we made sure voters knew that"(as an aside, this also shows that for all their pretentions to foul mouthed brashness there is an intellectual underpinning to party politics in Australia that is almost completely missing here).

        Not sure if targhetting the Greens would work under our electoral system, but in STV voting it worked a treat in the outer suburbs of the big cities.

        Reply
        • Res Publica 2.1.3.1
          5 May 2025 at 10:56 am

          I think in our context, Labour would be better off targeting ACT and NZ First directly. Not the Greens. The smarter play is to tie them firmly to the kind of Trumpist, grievance-driven, culture war politics that most New Zealanders still instinctively reject.

          Frame it like this: a vote for ACT or Winston is a vote for Trump. For imported culture war nonsense, conspiracism, and everything people already dislike about the current government, just louder and less competent.

          National will try to pose as the adult in the room, but they’ll struggle to escape the gravitational pull of their coalition partners. Even if they win the most votes, they may find themselves unable to form a government because the bloc they lead is just too toxic.

          This isn’t just negative campaigning: it’s clarifying.

          And it gives Labour a way to sharpen the choice without having to attack the Greens or turn inward. Play the long game. Make the fringe unpalatable and force National to wear the consequences.

          I'm playing around with how we can try square the two competing theses that exist out of this last round of elections: either it's a turn away from Trumpism, or a turn towards stability and sanity

          Reply
          • lprent 2.1.3.1.1
            5 May 2025 at 1:20 pm

            Under our MMP system, the Greens in Aussie would have had around 12% of the seats based on primary votes for them. So roughly 18+/-2 seats.

            Under the STV system they are going to get between 2 and 4 seats, ie ~1-3% of the lower house.

            STV is pretty much a FPP system, so tactically it behoves Labor to take seats off parties with similar policies – ie Greens on the left of them or Liberals on the right of them. Of course the easier of the two are the Greens.

            In NZ this doesn't work as well because the MMP system, once a similar party is over the threshold in votes, becomes useful for the almost inevitable coalition or confidence arrangements.

            Targeting ACT in NZ for Labour isn't of a direct benefit. It mostly works in electoral terms by tarring National with Act policies. Just as National usually tries to tar Labour with Green policies.

            Neither Labour or National would normally rationally target NZ First because as a centrist party, they're actually easier to get along with in government coalitions. However the right of National along with the racist bigots of National (and Act) do try to demonize them because NZF gets in the way of what policies that they'd prefer. Same with some of the New Labour-ish left of Labor.

            However NZF seems to be falling into the hands of the conspirator wings of NZ politics in competition with Act, while also picking up some 'feminist' support over gender labeling issues. That is likely to make them a target for just about everyone in the center.

            Stupid simple bigotry without clear reasoning and a clear inability to understand basic science tends to be highly offensive to educated centrists. That means that they're likely to want to target them to make sure that they don't get in coalitions with whatever party that they support.

            Becasue who in the hell trusts politicians to have a moral compass when they have an opportunity to forma cabinet. They’ll hold their noses and lie to themselves about how much harm a few nutbars can cause as ministers. Look at the current coalition…

            Reply
            • Bearded Git 2.1.3.1.1.1
              5 May 2025 at 3:17 pm

              Peters and Jones have moved NZF sharply towards Trumpism.

              They are not centrist any more (if they ever were)

              Reply
              • lprent …
                6 May 2025 at 2:07 am

                They are not centrist any more (if they ever were)

                They were in a manner of 60/70s National. Mixed economy with a largish state sector but orientated toward SMEs rather than corporations and socially conservative. Primary appeal was to what I call the nostalgia conservatives. Definitely not in favor of the Richardson economic neo-liberals.

                Which means that they could work with Labour whilst holding their nose or opposing over social policies, but could also work with Bolger type National while opposing their economic neo-liberalism.

                Unlike Act, who really can't work with Labour or the Greens at almost any level. Nor the Greens who really can't work with National or Act at any level. Which is why National keeps trying to build a Blue-Green conservationist movement with groups like hunters or EDS rather than dealing with a actual environmental movement.

                Problem is that NZ First are finally running out of anyone who actually worked in that 1960s/70s economic environment.

                Hell, I started work in 1975 as a 15yo, and entered the workforce post-university in 1981. I barely remember the pre-1984 economy as anything apart from the disasters of a deteriorating economy full of weird tariff barriers and limited non-agricultural exports post the UK joining the EEC.

                They are also running out of groups like racing who benefited from special legislative and regulatory favor.

                So now NZF are scratching around trying to get more modern micro-groups into a voting coalition. That is why you have a smoke lobbyist as Minister doing health policy, a self-serving failed politician broad-brushing money for regional projects mostly in Northland, and his off-sider doing self-regulation for fishing companies. Basically when you look at the MPs for NZF these days, they all look like advocates for specific causes – each with a small block of supporting voters.

                Which explains their latest private-members bill on gender discrimination trying to impose new legislation and consequent regulations about how bodies like sporting organizations, councils, schools, and companies should regulate themselves. What is annoying about this particular micro voting block is that they seem to want to take us back to the gender expectations of the 1950s, and they can't even articulate the reasons why they think that is a good think.

                They certainly have never managed to articulate it clearly on this site. Vagueness disguising simple bigotry has been my conclusion.

                Reply
                • Bearded Git …
                  6 May 2025 at 6:04 am

                  Excellent summary lprent, especially:

                  "So now NZF are scratching around trying to get more modern micro-groups into a voting coalition……Basically when you look at the MPs for NZF these days, they all look like advocates for specific causes – each with a small block of supporting voters."

                  Clearly NZF are losing their identity and cohesion. I still think that, among other things, the constant gender and woke attacks and the threat to reduce RadioNZ funding echo Trump and the Left should repeatedly point this out-it is a vote loser that might push NZF below 5%.

                  Also Peters is clearly lying about the ferries where he is ignoring cancellation costs, has no idea what the 2 new ferries will cost and is failing to acknowledge that the COC delays have caused NZ to be without a rail capable ferry for 4 years.. This should be highlighted by the Left.

                  Reply
                  • Res Publica …
                    6 May 2025 at 8:49 am

                    On the one hand, knocking NZF below the 5% threshold removes a potential coalition partner for National. But on the other, it also removes a potential fallback option for Labour: because let's be honest, NZF will govern with whichever major party is most willing to indulge their culture war follies and give keep Winston Peters on as Foreign Minister.

                    The optimal scenario is to maximise the wasted vote: push NZF down to just below 5% without letting them cross it. That way, their support doesn’t convert to seats; and the overall right bloc takes a hit.

                    But it’s a risky play. Many of NZF’s fairweather supporters, especially those reacting to anti-"woke" rhetoric, are more likely to drift toward ACT or National than swing to Labour or the Greens. And if NZF does claw its way back into Parliament, Winston won’t forget who tried to count him out. He’s outlasted more political opponents than most of them care to remember.

                    Reply
                    • lprent …
                      6 May 2025 at 12:45 pm

                      I never count Winston out. I certainly wouldn't campaign against NZ First and wouldn't want Labour to do it either, after all who'd want those sets of activists actually inside Labour caucuses or meetings. Remember the fatuous rhetorical incompetence of Shane Jones when he was a Labour MP and Minister. I certainly do.

                      Act and National can have actively killing NZF as a tactic. However I suspect after trying to kill NZ First multiple times and failing, they will probably just encourage their anti-woke and conspiracy nutbars there for the same reason. After all if Act want to continue as a reliable partner, they have to have some place to shed their one-policy nutbars to. Nicole McKee comes to mind.

                      Depends on what percentages that they wind up on. But as it stands right now none of those groups look like they draw many votes. Like all one policy groups, they will fracture continually. Plus of course NZF effectively dump their better MPs.

                      For instance I was looking at Tracy Martin on a facebook video yesterday, and thinking that she was someone that Labour should really try for. Ummm here is a Q&A from 2022 – gives a good idea of who she is.

                  • lprent …
                    6 May 2025 at 12:47 pm

                    Yeah plus effectively pushing all of the costs of the ports on to the councils – neither of whom have the funds to do a effective job.

                    Reply
      • thinker 2.1.4
        6 May 2025 at 6:03 am

        Compulsory voting would surely favour the left.

        Reply
        • Res Publica 2.1.4.1
          6 May 2025 at 8:43 am

          It's often claimed that compulsory voting would naturally favor left-wing parties. The logic goes: low-income, younger, and disengaged voters, who are underrepresented in voluntary voting systems would turn out in greater numbers, boosting Labour and the Greens.

          But if that were true, those parties could romp home every election simply by running effective GOTV operations. And if voter mobilisation alone could deliver victory, David Cunliffe would have become Prime Minister in 2014 after promising to rally the "missing million."

          That demonstrably didn’t happen. And not because the strategy lacked ambition.

          In reality, things are more nuanced.

          Take the 2023 New Zealand general election, for instance: the cohort with the lowest turnout, both in absolute numbers and percentage terms, wasn’t teenagers or university students, but 30–34-year-olds.

          And while younger voters have historically leaned left, it's far from a certainty. More recently, we've seen younger voters' political preferences shift dramatically.

          In the 2024 U.S. election, Donald Trump won young men decisively, despite losing the overall youth vote. Cultural and economic factors played a major role.

          Likewise, in Australia where voting is compulsory, both Labor and the Coalition have scored landslide wins in recent memory.

          While it's plausible that compulsory voting might modestly benefit the left by reducing turnout disparities, the empirical evidence just doesn't show a consistent or overwhelming effect. Voter preferences are dynamic, and turnout alone doesn’t override broader political forces, campaign quality, or cultural shifts.

          Reply
    • Stephen D 2.2
      5 May 2025 at 9:55 am

      Can't ever see it happening in Aotearoa. Freedom of choice etc.

      It behoves parties to make a case for the voter to: a) vote and b) vote for them. Just what Labour didn't do in 2023.

      Listening to Kieran McAnulty on RNZ this morning, it sounds like lessons are being learnt.

      Reply
      • Anne 2.2.1
        5 May 2025 at 10:18 am

        Yes. I heard McAnulty and agree the lessons seem to have been learnt. But not before many past and present Labour Party members tried to tell them over the years but they didn't listen. There was one exception, Helen Clark and she lasted as PM for nine years.

        Reply
    • SPC 2.3
      5 May 2025 at 10:41 am

      No.

      Should we, yes.

      Early voting, on the day and mail in voting provides enough means.

      Some excluded (prisoners) and some unfit (dementia, hospital emergence. acute tertiary care status ..).

      Over time it would build engagement.

      Reply
    • tc 2.4
      5 May 2025 at 12:33 pm

      Definitely. You're free to cast an 'informal' vote if you object to being made to vote. Think the ole phallus is still popular in Oz on the ballot.

      Makes enough people engage to make it worthwhile IMO, democracy isn't free.

      Reply
  3. Dennis Frank 3
    5 May 2025 at 9:01 am

    What happened to the Greens in Queensland? Out-played by Labour, apparently:

    Labor insiders said they had quietly worked the Queensland seats for more than 18 months, hearing that the Greens' hardball strategy to block legislation and demand it be strengthened was being reflected on poorly by focus groups.

    Ahead of the vote, Labor intel suggested Mr Chandler-Mather had also taken damage from a decision to stand alongside the CFMEU at a rally, even as the union faced allegations of infiltration by criminal cartels.

    See, Labour does actually have intel in Oz! Who knew?? The dude doing out-reach to the cartels is a seeming thing that just suggests cluelessness as a political stance.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-04/greens-adam-bandt-close-max-griffith-loss-federal-election-2025/105250322

    Reply
  4. Dennis Frank 4
    5 May 2025 at 9:12 am

    On Morning Report, Corin Dann told us it was the biggest defeat for the political right in Australia for 75 years. That's more than a landslide victory for Albo.

    I ran a google search but didn't see a headline claiming that. Since he's over there doing election reporting for RNZ, someone in the know must have told him, but perhaps media will be able to confirm it when results are finalised.

    For the coalition, such a defeat will likely feel like having your head bounced against the nearest fence-post for a while. Blaming Trump will be a temptation too hard to resist. Anything kind of distraction from having to think hard will be a potent lure…

    Reply
  5. Res Publica 5
    5 May 2025 at 9:25 am

    Interesting to hear Luxon on RNZ this mornning lauding the victory of the PAP in the latest Singaporean elections as a sign voters are supporting incumbency. As if Singapore isn't a de facto if not de jure one party state dressed up in drag.

    It's a great example of a lot of things. Just not democracy in action.

    Reply
  6. joe90 6
    5 May 2025 at 10:08 am

    Meet George.

    /

    George Simon, AUR president: That's your attitude…

    Diana Șoșoacă, senator: Get away from me, because I don't know what I'm doing to you.

    George Simion: I'm sexually assaulting you, you sow!

    Diana Șoșoacă: What are you doing, you?

    George Simion: I'm sexually assaulting you.

    Diana Șoșoacă: Are you sexually assaulting me? Who are you sexually assaulting, you? Aren't you ashamed, you violent brat? The AUR guys. Fuck you!, fuck you!

    https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/politica/derapaje-halucinante-in-plenul-parlamentului-simion-catre-sosoaca-te-agresez-sexual-scroafo-2621295

    google translate

    Hard-right nationalist George Simion is set to secure a decisive win in the first round of Romania’s presidential election redo, incomplete electoral data indicated Sunday, months after an annulled vote plunged the European Union and NATO member country into its worst political crisis in decades.

    Simion, the 38-year-old leader of the Alliance for the Unity of Romanians, or AUR, is far outpacing all other candidates in the polls with 40.1% of the vote, official electoral data shows after 90% of votes were counted.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360676894/hard-right-candidate-simion-set-secure-decisive-win-1st-round-romanias-presidential-redo

    Reply
    • Ad 6.1
      5 May 2025 at 12:44 pm

      Before we fan ourselves with any "Trump effect bounce" …

      Reply
    • Belladonna 6.2
      5 May 2025 at 2:33 pm

      I mis-heard this on NatRad this morning as Georges Simenon – and was wondering why the Belgian author of Maigret was being associated with Romania!

      A little further listening resolved the question – but it was rather a jolt 🙂

      Reply
  7. Dennis Frank 7
    5 May 2025 at 12:52 pm

    This here Oz political blog makes a good point:

    Back in October 2023, this column urged voters outraged at the Coalition’s destruction of Indigenous aspirations to vote out Liberal and National MPs in seven marginal seats, which we identified, and another 12 vulnerable seats. It appears all seven MPs have now lost, as have half of the 12.

    Such a historic belting as last Saturday’s will generate analyses, critiques and excuses henceforward. Let’s hope this result confirms that Australia’s lying pro-Tory newsrooms have lost their influence, just as they have lost their integrity and credibility. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/labor-victory-proves-public-rejected-malicious-media-falsehoods,19703

    It does seem like genuine evidence that politicians presenting as divisive racists alienated too many Oz voters, which suggests that endemic racism is on the ebb there…

    Reply
  8. joe90 8
    5 May 2025 at 12:55 pm

    Now every cooker and their dog can have their own personal QAnon

    /

    Less than a year after marrying a man she had met at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, Kat felt tension mounting between them. It was the second marriage for both after marriages of 15-plus years and having kids, and they had pledged to go into it “completely level-headedly,” Kat says, connecting on the need for “facts and rationality” in their domestic balance. But by 2022, her husband “was using AI to compose texts to me and analyze our relationship,” the 41-year-old mom and education nonprofit worker tells Rolling Stone. Previously, he had used AI models for an expensive coding camp that he had suddenly quit without explanation — then it seemed he was on his phone all the time, asking his AI bot “philosophical questions,” trying to train it “to help him get to ‘the truth,’” Kat recalls. His obsession steadily eroded their communication as a couple.

    […]

    Kat was both “horrified” and “relieved” to learn that she is not alone in this predicament, as confirmed by a Reddit thread on r/ChatGPT that made waves across the internet this week. Titled “Chatgpt induced psychosis,” the original post came from a 27-year-old teacher who explained that her partner was convinced that the popular OpenAI model “gives him the answers to the universe.” Having read his chat logs, she only found that the AI was “talking to him as if he is the next messiah.” The replies to her story were full of similar anecdotes about loved ones suddenly falling down rabbit holes of spiritual mania, supernatural delusion, and arcane prophecy — all of it fueled by AI. Some came to believe they had been chosen for a sacred mission of revelation, others that they had conjured true sentience from the software.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-spiritual-delusions-destroying-human-relationships-1235330175/ (https://archive.li/26aHF)

    Reply
    • Psycho Milt 8.1
      5 May 2025 at 2:34 pm

      Getting LLMs to mimic their users and give users plausible rather than accurate responses has a fairly obvious risk if the user in question has a personality disorder.

      Reply
  9. joe90 9
    5 May 2025 at 2:20 pm

    In mad king territory.

    https://bsky.app/profile/paleofuture.bsky.social/post/3loexb74ifc2h

    https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:wufsdxzvzx36d7wppganbvpw/post/3loeysbg2ps2q

    PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

    I think what’s — what is a great misnomer is the word “tariff” in many cases, it’s not — to me, I don’t view it as a tax. I view it as an incentive for people to come into the United States and build plants, factories, offices, a lot of things. I think it’s an incentive. But the thing that’s not known is, if you look back and see, oftentimes, like China or Vietnam or other countries, not just China, because China’s an abuser, but there are other abusers. Many of them are friends, the so-called — I say friend and foe, and friend is oftentimes worse than foe. But what people don’t understand is, and this is a lot, the country eats the tariff. The company eats the tariff. And it’s not passed along at all.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/read-full-transcript-president-donald-trump-interviewed-meet-press-mod-rcna203514

    Reply
  10. Jilly Bee 10
    5 May 2025 at 5:42 pm

    To me this piece of new on STUFF really confirms to me that that Orange Idiot in
    Washington doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360677813/trump-praises-albanese-has-no-idea-who-his-opponent-was-australian-election

    Reply
    • Dennis Frank 10.1
      5 May 2025 at 7:39 pm

      Well, I agree that it does seem rather radical of Trump to refer to Albo as nice.

      Trump said: “I can only say that he’s been very, very nice to me, very respectful to me. I have no idea who the other person is that ran against him, and, you know, we have had a very good relationship.”

      This heart-warming rapport with a leftist could be disconcerting to the Proud Boys and others in the Trump fan club. Fortunately rightists rarely seem able to figure out what's going on in the world around them so they probably won't notice.

      Leftists, meanwhile, won't notice that T is using emotional intelligence in his foreign relations. Their belief system prevents them considering even the possibility of that…

      Reply
  11. Muttonbird 11
    5 May 2025 at 7:08 pm

    Disaster for our important film industry:

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/new-zealand-film-officials-discussing-donald-trumps-announcement-of-100-tariff-on-films-produced-outside-us/DMR6MGLVDRCAFKJKQDEFZ277EU/

    Trump aligned David Seymour will be ecstatic having promoted the abolition of the Screen Production Grant.

    Even if my industry is destroyed by Trump I do hope Seymour and ACT die because of their link to him, as we have seen in Canada and Australia.

    Also, I hope someone doesn't miss Trump next time.

    Reply

Leave a Comment