4 ms·

My gut reaction to 'recreating loved ones in VR' is that it would be torturous more than soothing. Once a person dies, they're gone. The world is different, an

My gut reaction to 'recreating loved ones in VR' is that it would be torturous more than soothing. Once a person dies, they're gone. The world is different, and nothing will bring them back. Spending time with a simulacrum isn't really spending time with a loved one.

dijonman2 5y ago
It has the potential to be therapeutic. Perhaps only to be used under the supervision of a mental health professional. I for one have many things I wish I had said to my parents before they died. I’d like to use it, but not be obsessed or consumed by it.
spacexsucks 5y ago
Precisely. This is going to be used to suck people into the metaverse.
Jach 5y ago
Don't knock it til you try it? I mean, already in recent years people have made some very low fidelity 'resurrections' and gotten some measure of comfort from it, never mind the many years of history of people who visit gravestones to 'chat' (some even believing they get replies to some extent or another). When markov chains were hip, "talk with Charles Dickens!" (play with a markov model trained on his works) was at least interesting to some, GPT of course can do a lot better. Imagine we had actual superintelligent AI working on this, which actually tried to recreate brain models, or even restore a sense of existence to the resurrection that can continue independently and to their own delight rather than just being some static VR experience turned on and off whenever. (I jotted some thoughts a few years ago... https://www.thejach.com/view/2017/6/how_you_might_see_some_of_the_dead_again https://www.thejach.com/view/2017/6/how_you_might_see_some_o...) I'm in agreement though at least for now that even if you dialed up the fidelity to the point I can't point to anything objectively "off", let alone went with a low fidelity VR thing or just a chat bot, I'd still always think in the back of my mind that this isn't really the same person. Nevertheless, it could still be comforting to some, and interesting to others, and so if it's at all possible for potential future humans/ems/aligned AIs to work at it, they will. Curiously I don't have the same back of the mind feeling at all when considering the idea of someone preserved with cryonics and then brought back as an em, the person would be the same to me, even if there was a bit of damage from the vitrification process that was error-corrected. I have a disagreement with a friend on that point, who thinks it would be something similar but not the same. Anyway, I think this is due to just having a much higher fidelity "source of truth" to work from that is the preserved adult brain, whereas someone supposedly information-theoretically dead requires a lot more guess-work, perhaps truly impossibly too much more even for a superintelligence, to bring back convincingly.
- lolspace 5y ago
  Have you lost someone you've loved?
  - Jach 5y ago
    Yes, but I get the unstated implication. I don't think it would be fair to apply it to me even though I think it may be fair to apply it to e.g. Kurzweil, unless he's made recent statements suggesting otherwise (I don't keep up with him). I currently have no expectation of seeing a convincing simulation/resurrection/recreation/continuation of any of them, or the ones I currently anticipate losing over the next few decades, even should I go on indefinitely living, and don't expect anything at all if/when I should die.
    - lolspace 5y ago
      Would you want to have an avatar of them? I don't think I would.
      - Jach 5y ago
        If the 'avatar' is convincing and can have a continued existence as a person independent of my interaction with it, i.e. I don't "have" them as a form of possession, yes. It does seem better than 50/50 to me though that some (maybe all) wouldn't want continued existence and would decide to go back to not existing (for all I can tell), there may even be strong predictive signs of that in the brain models such that they don't even need to be temporarily brought back and asked or first made to listen to arguments or just have some final-final talks with me/others before deciding. I'd accept that. For less convincing avatars where the point is just my own benefit of conversing with something like them when I want, from slightly like them to eerily like them, for one it's a weak yes, for the others I'm more indifferent -- it'd be more in the realm of curiosity than desire, like talking to a historical figure or a fictional character. The weak yes I expect will get weaker (as it already has, despite non-linear flare-ups/resurgences where it's temporarily stronger) and eventually match the others after long enough.
- 5y ago
asiachick 5y ago
That might be true for you but lots of people imagine talking to dead loved ones and imagine the responses and advice they'd give. Some of them do that reflection in front of a picture of their dead loved one. Seeing them in VR would just be an enhancement. No need to hate on it.
- justinclift 5y ago
  Heh, that could then be a vector for manipulation of individuals, through their dead loved ones. "You know, you should really do XYZ..." (whatever the agenda is) Pretty dystopian.:(
usefulcat 5y ago
Agreed, to me it sounds like the worst possible kind of uncanny valley.
jhgb 5y ago
> it would be torturous more than soothing Relevant Asimov story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Past
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  I was going to suggest the HBO film "Reminiscence", which was panned as mediocre but I liked it for being Noir and somewhat original. It features a machine that can replay your own memories and record them for others -- useful for investigating crime, but otherwise highly addictive to the nostalgic. Reading about The Dead Past tho, there's a good deal of overlap with the plot device of "Devs", a periscope into deep history, but which Nick Offerman's character uses to re-live moments of his daughter's short life, as Asimov's protagonist does.
zem 5y ago
Greg Egan's "zendegi" is a very good exploration of that idea. set in the fairly near future, so relatable.

dijonman2 5y ago

It has the potential to be therapeutic. Perhaps only to be used under the supervision of a mental health professional. I for one have many things I wish I had said to my parents before they died. I’d like to use it, but not be obsessed or consumed by it.

spacexsucks 5y ago

Precisely. This is going to be used to suck people into the metaverse.

Jach 5y ago

Don't knock it til you try it? I mean, already in recent years people have made some very low fidelity 'resurrections' and gotten some measure of comfort from it, never mind the many years of history of people who visit gravestones to 'chat' (some even believing they get replies to some extent or another). When markov chains were hip, "talk with Charles Dickens!" (play with a markov model trained on his works) was at least interesting to some, GPT of course can do a lot better. Imagine we had actual superintelligent AI working on this, which actually tried to recreate brain models, or even restore a sense of existence to the resurrection that can continue independently and to their own delight rather than just being some static VR experience turned on and off whenever. (I jotted some thoughts a few years ago... https://www.thejach.com/view/2017/6/how_you_might_see_some_of_the_dead_again https://www.thejach.com/view/2017/6/how_you_might_see_some_o...) I'm in agreement though at least for now that even if you dialed up the fidelity to the point I can't point to anything objectively "off", let alone went with a low fidelity VR thing or just a chat bot, I'd still always think in the back of my mind that this isn't really the same person. Nevertheless, it could still be comforting to some, and interesting to others, and so if it's at all possible for potential future humans/ems/aligned AIs to work at it, they will. Curiously I don't have the same back of the mind feeling at all when considering the idea of someone preserved with cryonics and then brought back as an em, the person would be the same to me, even if there was a bit of damage from the vitrification process that was error-corrected. I have a disagreement with a friend on that point, who thinks it would be something similar but not the same. Anyway, I think this is due to just having a much higher fidelity "source of truth" to work from that is the preserved adult brain, whereas someone supposedly information-theoretically dead requires a lot more guess-work, perhaps truly impossibly too much more even for a superintelligence, to bring back convincingly.

lolspace 5y ago
Have you lost someone you've loved?
- Jach 5y ago
  Yes, but I get the unstated implication. I don't think it would be fair to apply it to me even though I think it may be fair to apply it to e.g. Kurzweil, unless he's made recent statements suggesting otherwise (I don't keep up with him). I currently have no expectation of seeing a convincing simulation/resurrection/recreation/continuation of any of them, or the ones I currently anticipate losing over the next few decades, even should I go on indefinitely living, and don't expect anything at all if/when I should die.
  - lolspace 5y ago
    Would you want to have an avatar of them? I don't think I would.
    - Jach 5y ago
      If the 'avatar' is convincing and can have a continued existence as a person independent of my interaction with it, i.e. I don't "have" them as a form of possession, yes. It does seem better than 50/50 to me though that some (maybe all) wouldn't want continued existence and would decide to go back to not existing (for all I can tell), there may even be strong predictive signs of that in the brain models such that they don't even need to be temporarily brought back and asked or first made to listen to arguments or just have some final-final talks with me/others before deciding. I'd accept that. For less convincing avatars where the point is just my own benefit of conversing with something like them when I want, from slightly like them to eerily like them, for one it's a weak yes, for the others I'm more indifferent -- it'd be more in the realm of curiosity than desire, like talking to a historical figure or a fictional character. The weak yes I expect will get weaker (as it already has, despite non-linear flare-ups/resurgences where it's temporarily stronger) and eventually match the others after long enough.
5y ago

asiachick 5y ago

That might be true for you but lots of people imagine talking to dead loved ones and imagine the responses and advice they'd give. Some of them do that reflection in front of a picture of their dead loved one. Seeing them in VR would just be an enhancement. No need to hate on it.

justinclift 5y ago
Heh, that could then be a vector for manipulation of individuals, through their dead loved ones. "You know, you should really do XYZ..." (whatever the agenda is) Pretty dystopian.:(

usefulcat 5y ago

Agreed, to me it sounds like the worst possible kind of uncanny valley.

jhgb 5y ago

> it would be torturous more than soothing Relevant Asimov story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Past

jazzyjackson 5y ago
I was going to suggest the HBO film "Reminiscence", which was panned as mediocre but I liked it for being Noir and somewhat original. It features a machine that can replay your own memories and record them for others -- useful for investigating crime, but otherwise highly addictive to the nostalgic. Reading about The Dead Past tho, there's a good deal of overlap with the plot device of "Devs", a periscope into deep history, but which Nick Offerman's character uses to re-live moments of his daughter's short life, as Asimov's protagonist does.

zem 5y ago

Greg Egan's "zendegi" is a very good exploration of that idea. set in the fairly near future, so relatable.