Substack has been infiltrated by AI bots!

After a cheeky exchange on X spanning two days I finally realized that I was being gaslighted by a bot that writes a newsletter here

I recently wrote about the deep wisdom offered in the movie Groundhog Day. In the spirit of recognizing the classics from the last millennium, here’s a shout out to the flick, Blade Runner.

This sci-fi thriller from 1982 is based on a screen play written by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples. It is an adaptation of Philip K. Dick's 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The film is set in a dystopian future Los Angeles of 2019, in which synthetic humans known as replicants are bio-engineered by the powerful Tyrell Corporation to work on space colonies. When a fugitive group of advanced replicants led by Roy Batty (Hauer) escapes back to Earth, burnt-out cop Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) reluctantly agrees to hunt them down.

One of the most interesting scenes has Deckard cross-examining a prototype replicant, Rachel (Sean Young), to prove that she is in fact a synthetic human. Humanity can be reliably discerned by physiologic responses to emotional stimuli:

Deckard finally ends the exceptionally long cross examination only after he has confirmed that Rachel is, in fact, a synthetic human. The twist comes quickly. Rachel doesn’t know that she is a replicant because memories of a lifetime have been implanted in her CPU.

This scene came to mind during an exchange I had with someone (or something) that has an X handle “Paul Wilson” and a newsletter on substack.

A Canadian clinical psychologist with over 46 thousand X followers, Jonathan Stea, is a staunch proponent of trusting the science. He has been plugging his book “Mind the Science” on social media. I asked him this:

He never responded. However my post drew this response:

I thought the conversation was over. But it wasn’t. I have included the full exchange taken directly from X at the end of this piece. What follows is the verbatim dialogue between me and “Paul Wilson”, purportedly a psychotherapist from NZ.

To summarize, Wilson begins by making the absurd statement that there aren’t “credible” experts on both sides of the scientific debates that are going on right now. As the conversation unfolds it becomes clear that Wilson defines “credible” as those who agree with the consensus position.

Anyone else, scientist or not, must be relying on devious means of fooling others and themselves if they advocate for positions that run counter to peer-reviewed meta analysis—according to him.

My rebuttal was that if he does not examine the evidence, or is unable to, he is stuck in dogma which arises from blind trust. I thought I would be able to extract a confession along these lines, but I wasn’t. Wilson resorted to constant redirects and accusations that I was using rhetoric that fell into basic categories which he described on his substack, “May Contain Traces of Therapy”.

He cited a single article of his “Under the Bridge and Under their Skin-Concern Troll and Sealions” seven separate times. The article defines styles of arguing disingenuously, several of which I use unknowingly, apparently.

For example, when I offer the possibility that peer-review can be corrupted, Paul that that was ridiculous because I was using the Nirvana Fallacy. He never asked about what evidence I could cite. He assumed that there was none and thus could invoke Hitchen’s Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Given the fact the he trusts consensus completely, I wondered how he would regard this exchange if in the future consensus changed to support my position as a critic. He claimed that I was using a psychological defense mechanism known as the ‘delusions of future vindication’.

Throughout our pleasant exchange he refers to me as a Sea Lion, someone who he depicts like this:

When I finally took the time to read his piece I was gobsmacked. I am a “Sea Lion” because in his mind I intruded into a conversation, felt compelled to intervene because I was offended and unreasonably demanded evidence before conceding I was wrong to begin with. Sea Lions are super annoying because they won’t relent while demanding that decor be maintained.

The problem is, Wilson inserted himself into a thread that didn’t include him, asserts that I am being offensive and rekindled the conversation several times when I thought we would go our separate ways. Doesn’t that make him the Sea Lion?

Is it possible that a psychotherapist is unable to see that he is projecting?

Of course, I did try to pry out of him a specific example of evidence that we disagreed upon. The entire basis of his assertions is that the evidence is clear. Okay. But what evidence? He he never cited any. Because I asked for specifics, that was construed as “wielding endless questions as weapons”—another sure sign that I am the Sea Lion.

I don’t have a big presence on X because I find that it is impossible to be thorough or have meaningful dialogue. I do engage with people from time to time. Paul Wilson seemed like the person who perfectly embodied what is wrong with a population that still has their blinders on. I wanted to really understand what are the fundamental flaws in their thinking and how far they would go to defend their logic.

Like Harrison Ford in Blade Runner, it took a while before I realized I was dealing with a ‘bot’. By that I mean that Wilson might be a living, breathing psychotherapist in New Zealand but for all intents and purposes he may as well be a ‘bot’ because his programming is so deep and complete with subroutines designed to redirect in real time when the lack of logic and rigor become exposed.

The fact that I was probably talking to AI (Intelligence being a stretch) finally hit me when Wilson, remarked for the third time that he wasn’t seeking my approval. I also realized that his responses came almost immediately, often with identical phrases he used previously. I took a look at his substack which has a couple of hundred followers and twenty articles “written” over a year and a half.

Were these articles written by AI or a psychotherapist named Paul Wilson? I don’t know, but I hope it’s the former for the sake of all people seeking counseling everywhere.

Paul Wilson: Substack Author of “May Contain Traces of Therapy”

To me, Paul Wilson is indistinguishable from a programmed AI ‘bot’. How many of these entities are out there-living and breathing or otherwise? If you are interested, the following is the exchange between us. I hope that it may offer some insight into the kind of mind traps that are rampant.

---

Me: Here’s a basic question: how do you know who is spewing pseudoscience and propaganda? There are experts on both sides of many of the debates going on right now. Trusting consensus is how smart people get lured into dogmatic thinking. Here’s my book on the topic:

Paul Wilson: No, there are not *credible* experts on both sides. What makes the difference is *evidence*. Ideally, peer-reviewed meta-analyses or systematic reviews in credible journals. https://skepticalscience.com/history-flicc-5-techniques-science-denial.html

Me: You haven’t looked hard enough

Paul Wilson: You’re welcome to that opinion. It’s not binding on others and I’m not seeking your approval.

Me: Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Good luck

Paul Wilson: The perfomative nonchalance of exposed Sealions with expressions of faux goodwill. I’ve written about that behavioural pattern:

<link to Sea Lion article>

Me: You think I am expressing faux goodwill? Not exactly. I am mocking you contemptuously. I thought you would recognize the sarcasm and irony. Surely you have encountered this before, no?

Paul Wilson: I’ve literally written about it in the article I just cited which I’m guessing you’ve not read. Thanks for self-evidencing the profile further as an ‘in vivo’ case study for others reading along.

Me: Paul, this exchange began when you attacked my position with a ridiculous position—that there are no credible experts on one side of scientific debate. That’s wrong prima facie. If you’re right there would never be a change in consensus positions.

Next, you deride me for not reading something that you wrote. You realize that you started this thread attacking my book. You didn’t read it either. Get a grip kid. You’ve lost objectivity and self reflection

Paul Wilson: Credible peer-review and evidence is what shifts the scientific consensus. Fake anti-vaccine experts offer little of either.

Me: You cannot be serious. Why do you trust peer reviewers? You are basing your understanding of science and the evidence entirely on trust. Amazing that you would have the temerity to go out on a limb on such flimsy approaches

Paul Wilson: Correct - I place weight on the highest quality peer-reviewed evidence published in credible journals. There is nothing flimsy about that as anyone who is actually science literate will tell you.

Me: How do you know these journals haven’t been corrupted by outside influence? Can you detect fraud in published data? Have you ever done that? Or do you rely on others ?

Paul Wilson: The burden of proof is on you since it’s your claim, not mine.

Me: Please explain how you would know the peer review process hasn’t been corrupted. Do you have the background to challenge their methodology?

Paul Wilson: Ah, the argument from conspiracy that peer-review has been corrupted also known as the Nirvana fallacy. Always the sign of a strong argument

Me: I see. You have just demonstrated that you are being dogmatic. I assume you know what that means.

Paul Wilson: You can claim that if you want. I don’t mind. I’m not seeking your approval or good opinion.

Me: Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Good luck

Paul Wilson: Yes, you said that already. Textbook performative nonchalance.

Me: You’re a psychotherapist right? Tell me how a person could know he was stuck in dogmatic thinking.

Paul Wilson: No, I don’t answer bad faith questions from obvious sealions. I explain why in my article.

Me: What a cowardly response.

Paul Wilson: This technique is textbook and called ‘negative trait attribution’ which Sealions use to try to manipulate people into answering their bad faith questions. I cover this in the article. Thanks for further self-evidencing it.

<link to Sea Lion article>

Me: Here’s a lesson for you young man: when you believe it is a logical fallacy to challenge peer reviewers integrity de novo, that is called dogma. In other words you would never know you were being hoodwinked. Big mistake for someone getting started.

Paul Wilson: I’m very flattered that you think I still look young, you sweet-talker. However, it’s won’t curry any favour with me about your dismissive unevidenced claim.

Me: I have no idea what you look like. Your youth is evidenced by childish arguments and logic.

Paul Wilson: There is nothing like descending to tone arguments and insults to deflect from an inability to support your claims with credible evidence.

Me: And you simply cannot answer. How would you know if the peer review process has been corrupted? Seriously? Isn’t it disquieting to know that you have to depend on others to detect it? What if the world calls the dissenters conspiracy theorists or anti science nut jobs?

Paul Wilson: Hitchen’s razor: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Me: None of these razors and generalizations are useful if you cannot answer my central question honestly. You’re intellectually bypassing. It’s actually what most of the scientific orthodoxy has been doing. I’d take a step back and reassess before passing more of your ideas as truth.

Paul Wilson: I don’t need to answer bad faith questions from Sealions. Somehow I think the world of science will survive this unfortunate eventuality and your detailed and well-evidenced critique.

Me: Agree. I think it’s going to turn out differently than you believe. Let’s wait and see

Paul Wilson: This is the psychological defence known as the ‘delusions of future vindication’ which trolls resort to when they are called on the lack of evidence to support their claims. I’ve written about that too:

Me: If it turns out the way I am predicting would you agree that in retrospect you would concede that you were deluded at this moment?

Paul Wilson: That’s how science works - new evidence changes your understanding - but we just call it being wrong. But the very thing conspiracy theorists lack is credible evidence. Given your claims about vaccines, climate change and 9/11, the evidence against your position is substantial.

Me: Just looking for a yes or no.

Paul Wilson: How unfortunate for you then.

Me: So yes? You would concede?

Paul Wilson: I’m not playing this game.

Me: You’re incredible. Why is it so hard for you to say yes? Is it because being wrong is inconceivable to you?

Paul Wilson: No, I just explained that my position on matters of science changes with new evidence and when it does we call that being wrong. This is a game Sealions play called ‘negative trait attribution’ (e.g. closed-mindedness) when they have no evidence. More here

<link to Sea Lion article>

Me: Yes. I too will change my mind when new evidence requires a shift. However you regard my position as deluded even though you have no background in the fields required to make that determination. Your position rests on faith alone. Mine rests on thirty five years of work.

Paul Wilson: Given your position entails multiple strands of science denial and conspiracy theories, I do regard your position as based on delusions. That’s the definition of delusion - a persistent attachment to false beliefs despite evidence to the contrary.

Me: If the sources which you trust eventually come to agree with me how would you regard me retrospectively? As deluded? Or ahead of the curve?

Paul Wilson: I don’t engage with hypotheticals about evidence that hasn’t been shown to exist. Sealions often try to pressure you to answer gotcha questions with baked-in assumptions you don’t accept with false attributions of close-mindedness hoping you’ll care enough to play.

Me: I’m not trying to play gotcha. I’m just wondering why you won’t answer a direct question. It’s actually salient to how science progresses. When shifts in understanding occur there will be ones that were right before the rest. Would you agree?

Paul Wilson: Sure. ;-) I just explained why I'm not answering you. TLDR: Because I don't dance with Sealions. Their whiskers give me a rash. I do write about them however:

Thanks for kindly continuing to self-evidence my profile. These ‘in vivo’ case studies help to demonstrate the patterns for others to learn from.

<link to Sea Lion article>

Me: I wholeheartedly agree. I think this would be an excellent piece for your substack. Demonstrate how you were able to make a board certified MD and MIT engineer with a background in applied mathematics admit that he has it all wrong.

Paul Wilson: No, the way the burden of proof goes in science is that the person making the (extraordinary) claims needs to provide the (extraordinary) evidence (Hat tip: Carl Sagan). Remember Hitchens's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Me: Wait, what? What is the extraordinary claim I am making?

Paul Wilson: I already spelled this out. But I don't need you to agree with my assessment: Given your position entails multiple strands of science denial and conspiracy theories, I do regard your position as based on delusions. That’s the definition of delusion - a persistent attachment to false beliefs despite evidence to the contrary.

As to the specific strands of science denial:

That’s how science works - new evidence changes your understanding - but we just call it being wrong. But the very thing conspiracy theorists lack is credible evidence. Given your claims about vaccines, climate change and 9/11, the evidence against your position is substantial.

Me: You haven’t stated any specific claim that I have made Paul. You’re just saying that I believe in absurd conspiracy theories. Can you simply state a claim that I have made that is extraordinary please.

Paul Wilson: No. See figure 1:

<link to Sea Lion article>

Me: you are referring to the sealion strip?

Paul Wilson: It's a figure of speech akin to RTFM (Read the Friendly Manual)

Me: So if I read your entire article I will know what specific extraordinary claim you think I am making?

Paul Wilson: No, but you might understand why the question itself is a classic example of Sealioning and hence why I will not answer it.

Me: Paul, please just tell me what extraordinary claim I am making.

Paul Wilson: No. You’ll get no such satisfaction here.

Me: You think it’s fair for you to level an accusation against me and it’s unfair for me to ask for clarification? Just want to be clear

Paul Wilson: I cover Sealion attempts at DARVO in my article. The truth of the accusation is in the very behaviours you are currently self-evidencing. Maybe read it and stop doing it?

[DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It is often used by people who perpetrate domestic abuse or other forms of wrongdoing. It's a common manipulation strategy used by psychological abusers to escape culpability and manipulate their partners into submission]

Me: You must be kidding. You just said that I won’t find out the answer to my question if I read the article. Do you have a term for someone who makes an accusation but refuses to clarify?

Paul Wilson: No, I’m not kidding. I’M NOT SEEKING YOUR APPROVAL OR GOOD OPINION EITHER. (emphasis added)

Me: I have to conclude that you are a bot. It’s pretty frightening to think they have become this sophisticated. And, for what it’s worth, it’s obvious that you aren’t seeking my approval. This is, in fact, how I know you are programmed. No sentient entity would say it 3 times.

Paul Wilson: Performative nonchalance and dismissal. Another tactic Sealions use when exposed and also a bit of a pivot to rage-baiting with insults. That’s covered under ‘crossing the streams’ in the article you’re avoiding reading.

<link to Sea Lion article>

Me: I’ve read the article. Smells like AI generated nonsense. Like all of your responses. It all makes sense now.

Paul Wilson: Sure, this further display of ‘too bored now’ perfoRmative nonchalance is rather textbook.

Me: Let’s assume you’re a psychotherapist. Can you see how you are describing yourself during this intriguing exchange?

Paul Wilson: Predictably, more DARVO and rage-baiting when performative nonchalance collapses. I’ve written about that style for trolling too.

<link to Sea Lion article>

Me: I’m not trolling you. You started this thread. I’m not baiting you into rage. Perhaps you have some unresolved trauma that you need to work out. Now that I have realized that I am exchanging with a programmed entity it’s all making sense

Paul Wilson: Anyway, this case study has all been very interesting but I need to go plug in to recharge. ;-)