4 ms·

> On the other, it feels like a severe form of escapism and refusal to move on. There is nothing wrong with it. People deal differently, I guess. I, for mysel

> On the other, it feels like a severe form of escapism and refusal to move on. There is nothing wrong with it. People deal differently, I guess. I, for myself, would have loved to have something similiar from my parents. Not a whole chatbot, but... Written down and audible memories. The tech is there, just the opportunity wasn't.

jfk13 7y ago
Yeah... this doesn't appeal to me at all (speaking as someone who lost one parent a few years ago, and sees the other growing frailer), but if he wants to use this form to capture and share memories, I guess that's fine. My main gripe is with the headline phrase "Artificial Immortality". It's so far removed from that as to be laughable. (The subtitle about "re-create his dad as an AI" seems severely over-hyped, too, although I suppose that's true of most uses of the term "AI".)
- pdonis 7y ago
  > My main gripe is with the headline phrase "Artificial Immortality". It's so far removed from that as to be laughable. Yes, it reminds me of Woody Allen's remark: "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying."
walterstucco 7y ago
> There is nothing wrong with it Actually there is. People deal differently with the loss, but eventually they all get over it, because it is a natural process. A severe refusal to move on is not what one can call a good thing. Think about the people around you and the consequences it could have.
- serf 7y ago
  >Actually there is. statements of fact like that with regards to a fairly unexplored territory are worse than useless, they're damaging. By what criteria do we know that this is a 'severe refusal to move on'? Should we accuse people who peruse old photographs from their history of the same 'severe refusal'? Why can't this AI idea be just yet another tool at our disposal for memory recall and recollection? Why paint this as some mental ineptitude, rather than just an archival opportunity? Most stores of data have possible consequence by their mere existence. What's different here exactly? Would the idea be more palatable if, rather than the clickbait ideas of immortality, it was framed as a trained chatbot?
  - walterstucco 7y ago
    > statements of fact like that with regards to a fairly unexplored territory are worse than useless, they're damaging. They are not. > Should we accuse people who peruse old photographs from their history of the same 'severe refusal'? Who said accuse? Remembering is one thing, trying to make them live after death is another entirely. "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus" has a thing or two to say about it. "Seek happiness in tranquillity and avoid ambition" > Why can't this AI idea be just yet another tool at our disposal for memory recall and recollection? Because death is inevitable, not accepting it is detrimental for one's health and future relationships. > Why paint this as some mental ineptitude, rather than just an archival opportunity? Who said mental ineptitude? > Most stores of data have possible consequence by their mere existence. What's different here exactly? That, just like Frankenstein, this is "a deliberate decision" to obtain exactly that goal. It's not a side effect. But I agree, I would say the same thing for any other other project having similar objectives. > Would the idea be more palatable if, rather than the clickbait ideas of immortality, it was framed as a trained chatbot? Psychologists are mostly that, but they can actually help.

jfk13 7y ago

Yeah... this doesn't appeal to me at all (speaking as someone who lost one parent a few years ago, and sees the other growing frailer), but if he wants to use this form to capture and share memories, I guess that's fine. My main gripe is with the headline phrase "Artificial Immortality". It's so far removed from that as to be laughable. (The subtitle about "re-create his dad as an AI" seems severely over-hyped, too, although I suppose that's true of most uses of the term "AI".)

pdonis 7y ago
> My main gripe is with the headline phrase "Artificial Immortality". It's so far removed from that as to be laughable. Yes, it reminds me of Woody Allen's remark: "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying."

walterstucco 7y ago

> There is nothing wrong with it Actually there is. People deal differently with the loss, but eventually they all get over it, because it is a natural process. A severe refusal to move on is not what one can call a good thing. Think about the people around you and the consequences it could have.

serf 7y ago
>Actually there is. statements of fact like that with regards to a fairly unexplored territory are worse than useless, they're damaging. By what criteria do we know that this is a 'severe refusal to move on'? Should we accuse people who peruse old photographs from their history of the same 'severe refusal'? Why can't this AI idea be just yet another tool at our disposal for memory recall and recollection? Why paint this as some mental ineptitude, rather than just an archival opportunity? Most stores of data have possible consequence by their mere existence. What's different here exactly? Would the idea be more palatable if, rather than the clickbait ideas of immortality, it was framed as a trained chatbot?
- walterstucco 7y ago
  > statements of fact like that with regards to a fairly unexplored territory are worse than useless, they're damaging. They are not. > Should we accuse people who peruse old photographs from their history of the same 'severe refusal'? Who said accuse? Remembering is one thing, trying to make them live after death is another entirely. "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus" has a thing or two to say about it. "Seek happiness in tranquillity and avoid ambition" > Why can't this AI idea be just yet another tool at our disposal for memory recall and recollection? Because death is inevitable, not accepting it is detrimental for one's health and future relationships. > Why paint this as some mental ineptitude, rather than just an archival opportunity? Who said mental ineptitude? > Most stores of data have possible consequence by their mere existence. What's different here exactly? That, just like Frankenstein, this is "a deliberate decision" to obtain exactly that goal. It's not a side effect. But I agree, I would say the same thing for any other other project having similar objectives. > Would the idea be more palatable if, rather than the clickbait ideas of immortality, it was framed as a trained chatbot? Psychologists are mostly that, but they can actually help.