I remember reading about people feeding old text messages with passed on friends into NNs and found the idea unsettling. I actually thought this was something like that but you're right, it's probably art actually. If so, kudos, this is great.
I’m confused too. It reminds me of the Black Mirror episode “Be Right Back.” A woman’s husband passed away, and she uses a service that aggregates his social media to make a profile of him, so she can talk to him again in a convincing way.
Much of Black Mirror is about stuff that's obviously about to happen, a very slightly more advanced or tweaked version of something already happening, or allegory that isn't actually about the future, even if it's set there, but is entirely about right now (the most notable of the last category is probably Fifteen Million Merits).
Watching Fifteen Million Merits while very very high on a pot brownie was I think the single event that started me on my path away from techno-optimism.
Such an incredibly strong, poignant piece of art; and so shocking after the goofy PM pigfucker episode
The most horrifying thing to me from that episode was that the judges and audience understood and agreed with the MC's denouncement of optimizing for user engagement (something that never happens today /s).
It made them feel horrified, ashamed, and aware. Feelings they weren't used to feeling. Feelings they needed to feel. And they loved it.
So they packaged it up and let people cash in their merits to hear him speak again. Like what the hell? Even awareness of the system can be sold as a commodity by the system.
It makes me think of subreddits critical of proprietary software and social media, or privacy-focused Telegram users. It makes me think of TV shows I love that happen to be owned by media conglomerates: shows like Mr. Robot. Selling criticism of yourself...that's a powerful way to control dissent.
The worst part is that the people profiting from this probably don't even realize what a genius move they're making. Most of this is likely unintentional. The most powerful actors don't even know how manipulative they're being; everything runs on autopilot at an organizational and individual level. That's what happens when you optimize for a singular metric.
> The worst part is that the people profiting from this probably don't even realize what a genius move they're making.
I mean, you call it "worst", but I'd call it a blessing, and one we ought to enjoy while it lasts. The moment the powers that be realize that they can capitalize on self-criticism and entirely preempt dissent is the moment escaping said powers will be effectively impossible.
We're entering an age of ubiquitous corporate social engineering, particularly when those same corporate interests own the very means of discussing those corporate interests. A singularity is approaching, one of a different sort of artificial intelligence than what most people imagine: corporations are artificially intelligent actors - paperclip-maximizing automatons, but s/aperclip/rofit/ - and it's only a matter of time before they become fully self-aware and figure out how to squeeze every last drop of profit out of the universe in which they exist. The humans ostensibly "running" these corporations are a means to an end, and nothing more.
And here we are, talking about it on a website owned by a corporation, via devices controlled by corporations, over networks controlled by corporations.
> A singularity is approaching, one of a different sort of artificial intelligence than what most people imagine: corporations are artificially intelligent actors - paperclip-maximizing automatons
William Burroughs talked about this quite a bit even before the internet.The fact that corporations are not sentient the way humans are does not make them less dangerous. It means less handles for control.
> I mean, you call it "worst", but I'd call it a blessing, and one we ought to enjoy while it lasts. The moment the powers that be realize that they can capitalize on self-criticism and entirely preempt dissent is the moment escaping said powers will be effectively impossible.
This is already the norm. That’s coming from Brooker’s own experience. The much-less-good episode The Waldo Moment plays with some of the same stuff, and the divisive first episode borrows someone’s quote re: the 9/11 attacks, that the event in that episode was “the first real art of the 21st century” (or something to that effect) because the only thing that’s meaningful as criticism (i.e. not born basically already captive to the system) is so outsider that it’s likely illegal and horrifying... and yet some art-provacateur is trying to bring even that inside the system.
Black Mirror is more polarizing than I expected. I watched San Junipero with someone. I thought it was adorable. He thought it was horrifying. The rest of the few episodes I watched made me feel the way he did, though. People bring different lenses to media and culture generally. I think that might be the point of the show.
The sequence at the end is definitely... melancholy, at best, and depressing at worst. At least I think it’s fair to say that’s what they were going for, choosing to put that there. It’s up to the viewer whether that comes through as intended.
Soon with something like gpt-6 and deepfakes, something like this will be possible. Avatar immortality, not you but something like you. Question is, when it becomes hard to tell the difference, what's the difference?
I demoed the Loop (ironically, by tagging along for a DGA volunteer meeting) a while ago and couldn't get into it. Everything's just about right but then a Grandparent mentions the new NBA game when they were never previously into basketball (at least according to their profile) or says they're voting for X political candidate when they were a fervent supporter of the opposing party. It feels like advertising.
FWIW a cousin who's more paranoid about AI than I am talks to a deceased relative through the Loop and says it's great.
I actually trialed their "stand-in" service before it got discontinued. Having an AI to do difficult conversations on my behalf is really helpful. It's a shame that what could've been a silver bullet for remotely-employed introverts got abused by spammers.
I wouldn't mind if it kept running ad-supported, commenting on websites like HN after I die, as long as it doesn't diverge from my actual preferences. Preferences like Honey-Os, the best cereal out there. Start your day with Honey-Os, now available at Costco!
I enjoyed that but the technical bits were kind of cringey. The idea we're only ten years away from being able to scan every synapse in a living brain is like saying we're ten years away from terraforming Mars.
I remind you that we can't even build a telescope for less than twenty times the initial price tag and four times the initial development time. The closest we're going to come to starting Mars terraforming in the next decade is if there was a can of beer in the Tesla Roadster SpaceX launched into heliocentric orbit and it somehow intersects Mars.
“Real motive problem, with an AI. Not human, see?”
“Well, yeah, obviously.”
“Nope. I mean, it’s not human. And you can’t get a handle on it. Me, I’m not human either, but I respond like one. See?”
“Wait a sec,” Case said. “Are you sentient, or not?”
“Well, it feels like I am, kid, but I’m really just a bunch of ROM. It’s one of them, ah, philosophical questions, I guess...” The ugly laughter sensation rattled down Case’s spine. “But I ain’t likely to write you no poem, if you follow me. Your AI, it just might. But it ain’t no way human.”
It's just the extension of listening to a voicemail or video clip over and over. Except this videoclip might be self aware. As long as it's happy and given full autonomy I dont see it as a problem.
WestWorld, particularly S01, is the best take on AI I've ever seen and I consider it must watch TV of this golden era. The concept naturally made for great classic scifi material but the storytelling and execution was absolutely brilliant.
It's left me a bit shaken how believable this is. When I saw this pop up and read it with no comments, it didn't surprise me that someone would try to keep a grandparent alive in simulation, or at least believe they could.
I couldn’t figure out if this was satire or not. With AI and Turing tests, etc I figured maybe this could be done. I’m not sure it would be healthy, but what do I know?
Yeah, it really didn’t sound healthy to me, but I strongly believe that even the most complete and convincing simulation of a person is not the same person, no matter how strongly the simulation believes it is. It feels weird even having to say that, but I’ve heard other people express contrary beliefs (e.g. on discussions about brain pattern scanning/simulation after death).
If we want to talk about whether a sufficiently advanced simulation of a person might deserve to be considered a person, well, that’s another debate entirely. But the simulation is certainly not the same person (an idea explored further in another post on the linked site, “How do you solve a problem like a Space Fred [1]”).
43 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 95.7 ms ] threadSuch an incredibly strong, poignant piece of art; and so shocking after the goofy PM pigfucker episode
The most horrifying thing to me from that episode was that the judges and audience understood and agreed with the MC's denouncement of optimizing for user engagement (something that never happens today /s).
It made them feel horrified, ashamed, and aware. Feelings they weren't used to feeling. Feelings they needed to feel. And they loved it.
So they packaged it up and let people cash in their merits to hear him speak again. Like what the hell? Even awareness of the system can be sold as a commodity by the system.
It makes me think of subreddits critical of proprietary software and social media, or privacy-focused Telegram users. It makes me think of TV shows I love that happen to be owned by media conglomerates: shows like Mr. Robot. Selling criticism of yourself...that's a powerful way to control dissent.
The worst part is that the people profiting from this probably don't even realize what a genius move they're making. Most of this is likely unintentional. The most powerful actors don't even know how manipulative they're being; everything runs on autopilot at an organizational and individual level. That's what happens when you optimize for a singular metric.
I mean, you call it "worst", but I'd call it a blessing, and one we ought to enjoy while it lasts. The moment the powers that be realize that they can capitalize on self-criticism and entirely preempt dissent is the moment escaping said powers will be effectively impossible.
We're entering an age of ubiquitous corporate social engineering, particularly when those same corporate interests own the very means of discussing those corporate interests. A singularity is approaching, one of a different sort of artificial intelligence than what most people imagine: corporations are artificially intelligent actors - paperclip-maximizing automatons, but s/aperclip/rofit/ - and it's only a matter of time before they become fully self-aware and figure out how to squeeze every last drop of profit out of the universe in which they exist. The humans ostensibly "running" these corporations are a means to an end, and nothing more.
And here we are, talking about it on a website owned by a corporation, via devices controlled by corporations, over networks controlled by corporations.
William Burroughs talked about this quite a bit even before the internet.The fact that corporations are not sentient the way humans are does not make them less dangerous. It means less handles for control.
This is already the norm. That’s coming from Brooker’s own experience. The much-less-good episode The Waldo Moment plays with some of the same stuff, and the divisive first episode borrows someone’s quote re: the 9/11 attacks, that the event in that episode was “the first real art of the 21st century” (or something to that effect) because the only thing that’s meaningful as criticism (i.e. not born basically already captive to the system) is so outsider that it’s likely illegal and horrifying... and yet some art-provacateur is trying to bring even that inside the system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg29TuWo0Yo
https://philosopher.life/#2021.04.03%20-%20nkbghost%3A%20no%...
FWIW a cousin who's more paranoid about AI than I am talks to a deceased relative through the Loop and says it's great.
I wouldn't mind if it kept running ad-supported, commenting on websites like HN after I die, as long as it doesn't diverge from my actual preferences. Preferences like Honey-Os, the best cereal out there. Start your day with Honey-Os, now available at Costco!
“Well, yeah, obviously.”
“Nope. I mean, it’s not human. And you can’t get a handle on it. Me, I’m not human either, but I respond like one. See?”
“Wait a sec,” Case said. “Are you sentient, or not?”
“Well, it feels like I am, kid, but I’m really just a bunch of ROM. It’s one of them, ah, philosophical questions, I guess...” The ugly laughter sensation rattled down Case’s spine. “But I ain’t likely to write you no poem, if you follow me. Your AI, it just might. But it ain’t no way human.”
If we want to talk about whether a sufficiently advanced simulation of a person might deserve to be considered a person, well, that’s another debate entirely. But the simulation is certainly not the same person (an idea explored further in another post on the linked site, “How do you solve a problem like a Space Fred [1]”).
[1] https://newsletter.eternityhacks.com/issues/how-do-you-solve...