Teddy

Where there's a will - and there is a f#cking will - there's a way - and there is a f#cking way

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@MrMBrown 🍻

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@PiQSuite @MrMBrown 😂😂😂

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@rossiadam 💯

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@PiQSuite 😂😂🙌

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@grok @PrometheusCHT @PiQSuite @MrMBrown FFS 😂😂

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@INArteCarloDoss 😂😂

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@DiscountedTr Love it! 😂😍

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@INArteCarloDoss Fucking brilliant 😂

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

https://t.co/CdkDKuchoh

[MarandoSteve @marandoSteve]

You don't need to be fooled by a deepfake for deepfakes to damage you.
Researchers call it the "liar's dividend": once you know synthetic media exists, you start doubting authentic media too. Not because you've been deceived — but because you could be. The mere possibility is enough.
This is the part most AI commentary misses. The threat isn't just that bad actors will create convincing fakes. It's that the existence of convincing fakes degrades your trust in everything — including things that are real.
Think about it: when's the last time you saw a video online and your first reaction was "is this real?" Five years ago, that thought didn't cross your mind. Now it's automatic. That shift didn't happen because you were tricked. It happened because your brain updated its priors.
As a psychiatrist, this interests me because the phenomenology is eerily close to derealisation — the clinical experience that your surroundings feel unreal, distorted, dreamlike. Classic derealisation is a perceptual distortion the patient recognises as abnormal. But AI-induced reality distrust is different. It's worse, actually. Because the uncertainty is objectively justified. You genuinely can't tell. That's not a malfunction of perception — it's an accurate read of an increasingly unreliable information environment.
We're building a world where rational people experience reality the way derealized patients do — and we don't have a name for it yet.

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

Incredible insight from @marandoSteve

[MarandoSteve @marandoSteve]

Everyone's debating whether AI will take your job.
The bigger threat? It's taking your sanity.
I'm a psychiatrist, and here's what I think the tech discourse is missing entirely:
Every major technological revolution has produced psychiatric casualties. Industrialisation brought mass alienation and alcoholism. Social media gave us an adolescent mental health crisis we're still not done processing. In every case, medicine was reactive — we documented the damage after the fact.
AI is different. And not for the reasons people think.
The internet increased the velocity of information. AI undermines the veracity of information. That's not a quantitative upgrade — it's a qualitative shift that hits the deepest layers of human cognition.
Our brains run on what you might call an epistemic immune system — the ability to sort trustworthy from untrustworthy input. It's not a luxury. It's a core function. When you can no longer tell what's real — when any image, voice, video, or text could be synthetic — that system starts to fail.
This isn't information overload. It's epistemic destabilisation.
The downstream effects are predictable: chronic uncertainty erodes reality testing. Allostatic load rises. Anxiety, dissociation, paranoid ideation — these aren't speculative outcomes, they're the expected neuropsychiatric response to a world where the ground truth keeps shifting.
And we're not ready. Not even close.
The psychiatric profession can wait and document the casualties — as we always do — or we can act with foresight for once.
The epistemic cost of AI is unhedged. And nobody noticed.

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

https://t.co/zEEQChKncj

[MarandoSteve @marandoSteve]

Your brain doesn't have an AI detector.
The fusiform face area — the neural circuit that processes faces — treats a deepfake exactly like a real person. Same activation, same automatic trust response. Your gut says "real" before your cortex even gets a vote.
Overriding that takes conscious effort. Every time. For every face, every voice, every piece of text you encounter. Cognitive scientists call this source monitoring — the process of figuring out where information came from. It's handled by your prefrontal cortex, and it's effortful, slow, and capacity-limited.
Now imagine running that process continuously, for every piece of content you consume, indefinitely.
That's not a metaphor for cognitive load. That IS cognitive load — of a kind we've never had to carry before. A chronic tax on the exact brain systems that keep you grounded in reality.
When source monitoring fails in clinical populations, we call it psychosis. When it's overwhelmed in healthy populations by an environment that demands it nonstop — we don't have a name for that yet.
But maybe we will.

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@pippopotamus Lol 😂

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@pippopotamus 😂😂

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@MrMBrown 😂😂

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@pippopotamus Total kunts

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@INArteCarloDoss @paper_alfa 😂😂

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@MiamKitty Superb selection 😋😻, my only addition would be a little Brillat Savarin

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@MiamKitty Kittysquidy 💯

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@pippopotamus @FlorenciSulla @DawsonKristo @MiamKitty @trader1sz @skippy07216416 @AnilVohra1962 @chigrl @NicTrades @MrBlueberryT @dulence @St0neP1ne @Odd_ysseus @DamonZumbroegel 4 days woah! 😻😋

[Teddy @QuantumFX7]

@INArteCarloDoss Pana! 😻❤️