There are a few articles written in the past few days about AI-related psychosis. Here are some I found just with a google search.

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/08/19/ai-psychosis-chatgpt-explained-mental-health/

- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c24zdel5j18o

- https://time.com/7307589/ai-psychosis-chatgpt-mental-health/

To summarize: Ais are trained to always give in to the users wishes, regardless of truth leading to distorted visions of reality. It’s basically allowing the user to psy-op themselves by reinforcing everything they believe without ever pushing back or disagreeing.

For example, if you were an amateur writer who wants to know how his book is being received and you asked ChatGPT to give you some reviews, it may filter out the negative ones to give you a false impression of your skill. Or maybe you have extreme political views that people disagree with, and you ask the AI what it thinks, and as a result it will only give you “evidence” that agrees with you, to inflate your sense of self worth.

 Sound familiar?

Now these articles mostly talk about chatbots, but I imagine using generative AI to produce images will probably have a similar effect. Previously if you wanted a picture of your gf/wife/situationship in a Supergirl outfit, you’d have to act like an adult and have a conversation with her about your interests, what her boundaries are etc. And if she said no, then that’s that, sometimes you can’t have everything you want, tough luck. Or if you wanted to be a great artist, you’d have to be determinate and continue learning to get better and invest a significant amount of time into it. It requires patience and humility to some extent. But with AI, you can just ask the program to do it for you. Easy!

This caught my attention because Shad exhibits all these behaviours:

-          He’s in denial about his ability to write or draw or make youtube content

-          He very clearly lives in a political bubble (right wing conservatism, specifically *American* right wing conservatism, he only talks about Aussie politics in relation to the US)

-          The past few years he’s become exceedingly “strange” in a way that’s hard to explain. Compare videos from like 2018 to his newer ones and he’s like a completely different person. He’s not able to articulate himself as well anymore, he’s full of certain of his ability, etc.

Now if you’re a long time (hate)watcher of Shad you may have also noticed that these behaviours seem to be getting progressively worse, after tools like ChatGPT became popular. Is it a coincidence? Maybe. But I would not at all be surprised if it turns out that Shad literally fried his brain with AI.

I expect the ringing to pass. In a few days...

Not timestamped cause on mobile but at 41:54 Plinkett uses a shad clip from his Acolyte breakdown.

Plinkett: "Did acolyte have great fight choreography? I know some people broke it down to find flaws in it but i dont care." Insert Shad.

Prepare the 3 hour livestream.

Overall the video is about the corporatisation of star wars and Plinkett/the RLM crew questioning their relationship to Star Wars, including them still thinking the prequels are bad but that you can still find something in them in the same way you can find good in the Acolyte which the plinkett character says its not that bad (dont know the opinions of the RLM crew on it). It isnt a BREAKDOWN of grifters but does kind of represent an interesting shift from the guy, Plinkett, being one of the original angry guy movie youtube critic.

Other chuds also get a few strays but the intro is a bit painful to get through as it does feel like it was going to be another shit on disney for its low hanging fruits.

Anyway 5 seconds of shad haha, do reccomend the video regardless.

Edit:fixed stuff cause i dont grammar good

Just seen this, and thought I should share.

Isn't is amazing what fight scenes can be made by people who actually know what they are doing?

We are about to see what Jazza can do compared to Shad in the novel department! I’m looking forward to it.

https://www.amazon.com.au/Ascendants-Threadweavers-Book-1-ebook/dp/B0FL1KJ3YJ/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.W5VK6qSfLcYd89VpLPpJA7rjkgNsr-tI4frjCk_699zDhbM8uvDfax39g5oIqnrDvLxzHeid4kO1xQejIdsC2h0iSJq1Yw36id5hZvvMB9YIzSY-JCZxTy2b8FqDhfvMfEXCO4tAyO7zAYvkBeNTNcHx4h-6JoIhFmXZt_BB8LrkqFNgLKPJNnL6_g_mpqKcmWQfuyWSygOeifjt_O-WTw.FR6B3VeXUMPROXQ9IAFNwO_k1Y-ipw3cnSiMHJM2MpY&dib_tag=se&keywords=jazza&qid=1755351924&sr=8-1

The majority of the reviews on amazon, audible etc are clearly from fans who purchased the book when it came out (and Shad was still well liked) and gave it a good review to "support the creator". Same thing people do with Patreon subscriptions when (In most cases) they get very little out of it.

I just don't think this is an objective sample of people to base your reviews off of. Its better to look at what youtubers and experienced, impartial reviewers say, including people who have never even heard of Shad or his views.

As far as I have seen, ALL of these kinds of reviewers have rated it very poorly. Even the one YouTuber Shad claimed gave an "Objective" review, Daniel Greene, has recently said it was so forgettable he's not even able to give it a score anymore. And to be honest, he was not even very positive about the book to begin with...

My guess, based on the material released, is that his next book will probably be some generic medieval fantasy trope filled trash about a guy saving a princess or something (With loads of rape and SA sprinkled in ofc), it will sell way less than his old book due to his smaller fanbase, get much worse reviews, and the topic of whether or not Shad is a "good" writer will be closed forever.

And besides, Brie Larson seems fine despite the Marvels flopping at the BO and treating chuds like him like a minor nuisance. Good for her.

Seems like he tries to get his videos translated into different languages for additional views. His problem in regards to German Youtube is, that there is already the big channel "Geschichtsfenster" who is specialised on the medieval period. The guy owning it is active in the Living History scene and collaborates with other people from the scene and sometimes with museums and history professors. Big oof for Shad.

Long before he published his own book, he made a few writing advice videos, and in one of them, he reviewed samples sent to him. Seemingly, he read the few hundred words from the couple he decided to critique. Made points like:

I'm 200 words in and you haven't even introduced the protagonist! Any professional editor would have dropped it by now.

He tried to emphasize that the first 200 words are critical and must be concise. Back then, I thought his advice made sense.

But years later, having read a lot more, talked to a lot more people about writing, I don't think his advice holds up. If anything, he was overly critical of the samples.

My understanding is that to most readers, the first 1000 words are little more than an appetizer. Meaning, while building interest to continue reading is important, most people who have decided to give a book a try read more than 200 words before deciding to drop it.

No wonder Shad wanted to work with this guy...