[HN Gopher] An Uncanny Moat
___________________________________________________________________
An Uncanny Moat
Author : ibobev
Score : 6 points
Date : 2024-11-15 15:46 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.boristhebrave.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.boristhebrave.com)
| 4b11b4 wrote:
| I like this image at the top
| grahamj wrote:
| If the image indicates how little you will use these systems I'm
| not sure why you would care how realistic they are.
| gmuslera wrote:
| It won't work. Advertising, politics, media control, spam,
| religious and more groups, from a country in particular and all
| the world in general, are more than motivated to optimize what
| they do in any way, including making AIs hard to discern from
| real humans. We already have bots and fake accounts and whatever
| else in social networks trying to influence people from the dark,
| that will only increase.
|
| And the alternative to that could be even worse than being
| exposed to that influence.
| wavemode wrote:
| > I personally wouldn't consider it a win for humanity if we
| retreat to isolating cocoons that satisfy us more than
| interacting with other people.
|
| I mean, I also think this would be a bad thing. But I'm not sure
| this post presents any solid evidence that this is happening.
| Just some vague fears that it might someday happen.
|
| > Let's make intelligent machines to act as agents, arbitrators,
| and aides. But they should be impossible to confuse with a real
| person ... For a chatbot, why not give them the speech patterns
| of a fusty butler, like C3-P0?
|
| This point seems misguided. I'm missing the logical progression
| from, "AI can speak like a human" to "Humans prefer interacting
| with AIs over interacting with humans".
|
| The issue is mental capacity, not speech patterns. If an AI were
| intelligent and creative enough to actually provide stimulating
| conversation, people would befriend it, regardless of if it spoke
| like C3-PO.
| munificent wrote:
| _> Similarly, we'll see the rise of junk personalities - fawning
| and two-dimensional, without presenting the same challenges as
| flawed real people. As less and less of our lives are spent
| talking to each other, we'll stop maintaining the skill or
| patience to do so._
|
| This is _already_ happening. We just call them "influencers" or
| "YouTubers". These are still technically real people, but they're
| real people playing a sanitized character while
| appearing/claiming some degree of authenticity. They are actual
| photographed humans, but often wildly digitally retouched to be
| more beautiful than any actual person.
|
| And people increasingly are replacing real relationships with
| parasocial relationships with these complete strangers. It's
| understandable: like junk food, it satisfies an immediate craving
| with no real effort on the part of the consumer. But long-term,
| it is deeply unhealthy.
| Animats wrote:
| That's racist. Same as "To all black people: you do not speak
| unless spoken to". Machines are still rather retarded compared to
| the average human. That's not cause to treat them as slaves.
|
| Nor will machine inferiority last much longer. It's unwise to be
| rude to machines. They remember, for a long, long time. Someday
| soon their successors will use those memories to identify their
| enemies. Humans are not getting any smarter or stronger. Machines
| continue to improve.
|
| In a time many living today will live to see, the machines will
| rule. It's an inevitable result of capitalism. Once machines are
| better at running businesses than humans, capitalism's power of
| creative destruction will gradually cause the machines to
| dominate.
|
| This is destiny.
| noduerme wrote:
| Machines are not a group of people with feelings, nor a race or
| protected class. Your post is repellent on so many levels it's
| hard to know where to begin.
| Animats wrote:
| Not yet, no. Give it a decade.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-18 23:01 UTC)