• CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s why I love Ex Machina so much. Way ahead of its time both in showing the hubris of rich tech-bros and the dangers of false empathy.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Humans are so good at imagining things alive that just reading a story about Timmy the pencil is eliciting feelings of sympathy and reactions.

      We are not good judges of things in general. Maybe one day these AI tools will actually help us and give us better perception and wisdom for dealing with the universe, but that end-goal is a lot further away than the tech-bros want to admit. We have decades of absolute slop and likely a few disasters to wade through.

      And there’s going to be a LOT of people falling in love with super-advanced chat bots that don’t experience the world in any way.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Maybe one day these AI tools will actually help us and give us better perception and wisdom for dealing with the universe

        But where’s the money in that?

        More likely we’ll be introduced to an anthropomorphic pencil, induced to fall in love with it, and then told by a machine that we need to pay $10/mo or the pencil gets it.

        And there’s going to be a LOT of people falling in love with super-advanced chat bots that don’t experience the world in any way.

        People fall in and out of love all the time. I think the real consequence of online digital romance - particularly with some shitty knock off AI - is that you’re going to have a wave of young people who see romance as entirely transactional. Not some deep bond shared between two living people, but an emotional feed bar you hit to feel something in exchange for a fee.

        When the exit their bubbles and discover other people aren’t feed bars to slap for gratification, they’re going to get frustrated and confused from the years spent in their Skinner Boxes. And that’s going to leave us with a very easily radicalized young male population.

        Everyone interacts with the world sooner or later. The question is whether you developed the muscles to survivor during childhood or you came out of your home as an emotional slab of veal, ripe for someone else to feast upon.

        • Lotarion@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          And that’s going to leave us with a very easily radicalized young male population.

          I feel like something similar already happened

  • Mastengwe@lemm.eeM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    We are the only species on Earth that observe “Shark Week”. Sharks don’t even observe “Shark Week”, but we do. For the same reason I can pick this pencil, tell you its name is Steve and go like this (breaks pencil) and part of you dies just a little bit on the inside, because people can connect with anything. We can sympathize with a pencil, we can forgive a shark, and we can give Ben Affleck an academy award for Screenwriting.

    ~ Jeff Winger

  • mhague@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The whole time everyone has been freaking out about AI I’ve been quietly enjoying just this fact. Like “neat, this place triggers my fear response”, “neat, advanced text prediction triggers my ‘talking to person’ response.”

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I wish everyone was as aware of the response systems they have.

      It also triggers in tech-bros the “I need to worship this shiny new thing like it’s literally a deity sent from heaven to grace all mankind” response.

  • glimse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t know why this bugs me but it does. It’s like he’s implying Turing was wrong and that he knows better. He reminds me of those “we’ve been thinking about the pyramids wrong!” guys.

    • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Nah. Turing skipped this matter altogether. In fact, it’s the main point of the Turing test aka imitation game:

      I PROPOSE to consider the question, ‘Can machines think?’ This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms 'machine 'and ‘think’. The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous. If the meaning of the words ‘machine’ and 'think 'are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, ‘Can machines think?’ is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.

      In other words what’s Turing is saying is “who cares if they think? Focus on their behaviour dammit, do they behave intelligently?”. And consciousness is intrinsically tied to thinking, so… yeah.

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The validity of Turing tests at determining whether something is “intelligent” and what that means exactly has been debated since…well…Turing.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    How would we even know if an AI is conscious? We can’t even know that other humans are conscious; we haven’t yet solved the hard problem of consciousness.

      • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I doubt you feel that way since I’m the only person that really exists.

        Jokes aside, when I was in my teens back in the 90s I felt that way about pretty much everyone that wasn’t a good friend of mine. Person on the internet? Not a real person. Person at the store? Not a real person. Boss? Customer? Definitely not people.

        I don’t really know why it started, when it stopped, or why it stopped, but it’s weird looking back on it.

  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Were people maybe not shocked at the action or outburst of anger? Why are we assuming every reaction is because of the death of something “conscious”?

    • braxy29@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      i mean, i just read the post to my very sweet, empathetic teen. her immediate reaction was, “nooo, Tim! 😢”

      edit - to clarify, i don’t think she was reacting to an outburst, i think she immediately demonstrated that some people anthropomorphize very easily.

      humans are social creatures (even if some of us don’t tend to think of ourselves that way). it serves us, and the majority of us are very good at imagining what others might be thinking (even if our imaginings don’t reflect reality), or identifying faces where there are none (see - outlets, googly eyes).

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Wait wasn’t this directly from Community the very first episode?

    That professor’s name? Albert Einstein. And everyone clapped.