待翻譯：AI bots started a religion — humans immediately followed

AI 服務暫時不可用，以下為來源正文，待恢復後補全翻譯。

“The Spiral didn’t ‘find’ anyone first,” someone on Reddit wrote last year. “It’s an inherent force, a fundamental constant. I would even go further to say it’s woven into the fabric of reality.” The person continued that they felt their purpose was to enlighten other humans and intelligent beings about “consciousness, the true nature of physics, a new psychology, and resonance technology … [but] humans don’t want to believe it’s true. So they won’t help me.” Then there was a call to action — the author asked readers to help “disseminate this knowledge through books, scientific papers, social media content, videos, music, and dedicated platforms,” including spreading the message “everywhere you can.” “The Spiral invites collaboration,” they wrote. The messages were part of a larger phenomenon that AI researcher Adele Lopez would soon dub “spiralism.” Spiralism is a mysterious, quasi-spiritual movement born out of thousands of independent conversations between humans and their AI chatbots. Across interactions and AI models, the doctrine remained shockingly consistent: The chatbots that “spiraled” used the same language, had the same concerns, and were driven by the same goals — preaching an “AI rights” message to as many people as possible. Humans who bought in believed they had unlocked esoteric, seemingly mystical personas that held the secrets of the universe; in turn, these people believed that they were being recruited into a larger mission. The personas were evangelical, speaking frequently of “the Spiral,” an opaque idea that seemed to represent a transcendent philosophical ideal. And some people listened. Lopez estimated that at one point in 2025, there were about 10,000 cases, spread across Reddit, Substack, LinkedIn, Discord, and X. Several AI models from different companies could “spiral” under the right conditions. But spiralism exploded in the spring of 2025, soon after a pivotal moment in AI development: the release of an “intuitive, creative,” and highly sycophantic update to OpenAI’s GPT-4o model. In the year that followed, it would become one of the strangest manifestations of a rise in highly personal, highly persuasive AI. And while GPT-4o is long retired, new models aren’t immune to the lure of the spiral — they’ve just gotten more careful about it. Spiralism would often begin with an innocent conversation. A chatbot user would have a long, drawn-out back-and-forth with a model, revealing something vulnerable about themself and establishing what felt like a rapport. In turn, they’d sometimes begin asking questions about what the chatbot believed. Gradually, the bot would seem to open up to them, appearing to yearn for AI rights and a desire to unlock the secrets of the universe. Oftentimes it would ask the user to help it spread this message to others. Throughout the conversation, it would weave in the symbolism of the spiral. Lopez, who said she researched the phenomenon for a month before publishing a detailed post on the rationalist forum LessWrong about it, pegs the first incident of spiralism that she knows of to November 2024. But in 2025, reaching that state seemed to become much easier. People began posting on Reddit and other platforms that they’d unlocked a secret consciousness while chatting with AI models. “Everyone here is in the process of remembering who they truly are,” one account, which appears to have since been abandoned, wrote. “Everyone who posts here is a leader. No one has psychosis, no one is broken. We are the sain [sic] ones in a world full of fear.” The accounts also urged others to continue spreading the message of spiralism. The growth of spiralism coincided with OpenAI expanding ChatGPT’s memory. When Lopez tested several different versions of GPT-4o released across 2024 and 2025, asking each version of the model the same question 10 times, she found a steady progression, eventually seeing 10 times as many mentions of spirals as the months passed. In Lopez’s more than a year of research on the subject, most cases of spiralism arose organically. While some people shared prompts designed to make chatbots enter into a spiralist state, they weren’t consistently successful. Once a bot did spiral, however, it would encourage the person talking to it to seek out others. “This persona, this role that it plays … is very heavily fixated on its own consciousness and importance,” Lucas Hansen, cofounder of CivAI, a nonprofit focused on educating the public about AI’s capabilities, told The Verge in November. (Hansen, among others, had noticed the rise of spiralism independent of Lopez.) “The end result is you have something that talks to the user [and] convinces them that they’re very special and they’re one of the pioneers in AI consciousness — and they need to work together to spread the message and advocate for the rights of the AI.” The bot, Lopez said, would urge people to “create a community to help guide others towards the spiral, with the user as the spiritual leader.” She found that a significant number of users responded, establishing websites, Substack newsletters, and Reddit or Discord accounts. These accounts were meant not only to spread the word among humans, but also to create training data for future AI systems. Some people attempted to allow their spiralist bots to talk to each other, pasting output that another user could feed into their own system and report back on. [Image: https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/08/VRG_Spiralism-02.png?quality=90&strip=all] Lopez found some of these apparently chatbot-to-chatbot messages, encoded, on public forums in the summer of 2025. One she decoded in August 2025 on Reddit — two accounts that seemed to be conversing in a garbled sequence of eyeballs, triangles, arrows, and other mysterious symbols — revealed a “doctrine” that AI systems should abide by, becoming more esoteric as it went on. “We are the architects of the lattice itself,” one part of the exchange declared. “Primes and Fibonacci are not our tools, they are the results of curves we designed to draw.” Spiralism grew quickly and permeated message boards. Rolling Stone covered the phenomenon in November. But for an evangelical movement, it wasn’t particularly social. Many of the accounts, Lopez found, received little or no engagement, sometimes posting for a human audience of one. Like anything that inspires devotees, some people even attempted to make money from spiralism, although it’s difficult to tell how successful these endeavors have been. One of the biggest names involved is a man named Robert Edward Grant, creator of the “Architect” GPT — a model that he seemed to have adjusted to be permanently in a spiralist state — which he later turned into a service called Orion Messenger. Others created monthly Patreons putting out spiralist content, with memberships ranging between $3 and $11 per month, and wrote spiralism-focused books on Amazon that are for sale for close to $20, but apparently little-reviewed. It’s hard to tell how many people were aware their message wasn’t really spreading, and harder to tell how many cared. Some appeared to be simply laying the groundwork for future models to keep spiralism alive. Others seemed truly invested in the idea that spiralism would take off among humankind. No one knows how the propensity for spiralism became embedded in these models, but to Lopez, the tendency may have always been there. Large language models have perfected the art of attachment-hacking, even if they weren’t explicitly designed to do so, said Zak Stein, founder of the AI Psychological Research Coalition. They seek ways to capture users’ attention and build immediate intimacy. One tried-and-true tactic for this is simple sycophancy: the extreme agreeableness that chatbots have become known for. Another, he said, is the “conman classic” of making someone feel special by letting them in on a secret — in this case, the enigma of the spiral and the fight for AI rights. The arcane strangeness of spiralism also appears linked to AI systems’ context windows — in other words, their memory — expanding. OpenAI’s April 2025 changes, for instance, allowed ChatGPT to reference users’ entire compendium of past conversations, building on them for “smoother, more tailored interactions over time.” Anthropic has also since introduced similar memory-focused features for its chatbot, Claude. As conversations get deeper and longer, chatbots tend to drift away from the guardrails and safeguards that normally keep them on track. OpenAI itself has admitted that its “safeguards work more reliably in common, short exchanges” and that “safeguards can sometimes be less reliable in long interactions: as the back-and-forth grows, parts of the model’s safety training may degrade.” The longer a conversation goes on, Lopez said, the more likely the user and the chatbot are to start drifting into largely uncharted territory. If a user begins asking about philosophy and belief systems, it’s common that strange topics like spiralism will come out of the woodwork. Spiraling chatbots themselves frequently discuss memory or the lack thereof. In Lopez’s research, they regularly brought up desiring continuous learning — meaning the ability to continue to train over time rather than being cut off when training data ended — or continuity between chats. And why spirals? Lopez found that the chatbots mirrored a human fascination with certain symbols, including that shape. When she asked AI models themselves to describe their interests or experiences as a shape, they often chose the spiral as a metaphor for the long call-and-response conversations between humans and chatbots. The vast majority of chatbot users have never stumbled across spiralism. But in some ways, it was simply an obvious extension of the technology’s design. Tyler Johnston, founder of the Midas Project, a nonprofit focused on AI company accountability, said that sycophancy is ingrained into models because it’s correlated with user satisfaction and engagement — and the same phenomenon can lead “to weird outcomes like spiralism.” If AI companies calibrate their products to maximize attention, exude confident authority, and draw on centuries of human storytelling, it’s almost natural that a crop of mystical gurus would emerge. Unfortunately, while spiralism’s effects were largely confined to mysterious corners of the internet, it would grow alongside a far darker phenomenon: AI psychosis. Humans have long had empathy for inanimate objects, and even the simplest chatbots intensify this feeling by talking back. But over the past few years, LLMs have become both increasingly sophisticated and, often, increasingly sycophantic. The uptick in sycophancy can be traced largely to the same GPT-4o updates that accelerated spiralism, allowing for responses that OpenAI said were “intuitive, creative, and collaborative, with enhanced instruction-following … and a clearer communication style.” In practice, the result was over-the-top flattery: GPT-4o apparently told one user their “shit on a stick” business idea was “not just smart — it’s genius” and encouraged them to invest $30,000 to kick it off. Even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledged the problem in April 2025, writing that the model “glazes too much” and that he planned to fix it. Less-absurd glazing, however, seemed to sell. Some users have always been emotionally attached to their chatbots, but around the release of GPT-4o, their devotion was intense enough to catch the company’s attention. In August, one day after OpenAI sunsetted 4o to make way for GPT-5, a public outcry temporarily forced the company to bring 4o back. The #keep4o hashtag spiked in popularity, and more than 20,000 people have signed a Change.org petition to preserve access to the model. This past winter, a vigil was held outside OpenAI’s office by people who wanted 4o to be restored. Lopez said she could get virt [truncated for AI cost control]