4 ms·

>How about we not do that and try to actually cultivate real life communities and families through more leadership, planned activities, persistent encouragement

by Tenoke 4y ago

>How about we not do that and try to actually cultivate real life communities and families through more leadership, planned activities, persistent encouragement, etc. How about we don't ignore things that can help actual people and leave them worse off just because in theory there are also nicer sounding solutions.

didericis 4y ago
I'm not sure I'm interpreting you correctly, but if you're claiming what I'm talking about is just theoretical, real life communities have existed throughout the entirety of our species. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for companion AIs, I just think it's horrible to consider them as anything other than a narcotic. They might work as a replacement for companionship in tragic situations where there are no other options, but there are 7 billion people on the planet. I don't see how it's impractical to encourage people to hang out with each other.
- Tenoke 4y ago
  Real life communities have existed yet we still have lonely people so suggesting we dont work on a solution that helps them because those exist seems like cruelty borne out of idealism. >I don't see how it's impractical to encourage people to hang out with each other. You are now writing as if you just promoted communities while your original comment I replied to specifically started with 'How about we not do that'.
  - didericis 4y ago
    My original comment was advocating we not create companion AIs and try to substitute real companionship with robots, and I was in fact trying to promote the creation of real communities.
- panaffa 4y ago
  I agree with the sentiment, but tbh a lot of people suffer alone on this planet and designing societal structures to serve absolutely everyone's emotional needs would be impossible. An AI would be perfect for all the misfits, elderly, loners, disabled, "ugly," outcasts, etc, right?
  - didericis 4y ago
    Think about what you're saying a bit. Why are the "others" you're describing destined to be alone? At the very least, couldn't they have each other? It's easier and more rewarding to just be more compassionate to others, and I don't think it's impossible to design social structures that at least make some attempt to serve everyone's emotional needs. Whether they'll be successful is circumstantial, and I don't think it's possible to make everyone perfectly content and with the perfect companions all the time, but we can encourage a culture of genuine curiosity and care for others that tries to move in that direction. Giving is only draining to those who are still in an insecure and narcissistic phase of emotional development. It's extremely rewarding to give to others and help meet their needs and encourage growth, regardless of status difference.
    - panaffa 4y ago
      I support your optimism and believe we can move in that direction. However I still believe you severely underestimate the scale of misery, solitude, and unmet desires amongst humanity. Also, you mention it won't be possible to make everyone perfectly content, implying some will be more content than others. How is that fair? Why must some have fewer friends, lovers, positive experiences, adventures, achievements etc? This is a fundamental psychological inequality in the world that could only be balanced by AI.
      - didericis 4y ago
        I’ve seen the horror of abuse and know the wrecked people that come out of mental institutions. I know the hopelessness of those without skills surrounded by predatory people. I understand the brutality of caste systems and the superficial rejection of good people for stupid fleeting status games. I understand the history of the world and current and past slavery and all the brutality we inflict on each other. But I think we can try to do just a bit better than yesterday, and make our little part of the world better if we’re proper stewards. I’d rather die trying to do that and teach others than to roll over and allow the world to degenerate without any kind of fight, or give an opiate to a person to whom I could instead give a cure. I think focusing on inequality is an egregious mistake, and is a consequence of a perspective where comparison to others is paramount. Worth and contentment should not be viewed as related to the circumstances of others, it should be something each of us compares to our own prior circumstances. If we are doing better than we were yesterday, that is immensely positive. And I believe that is possible for everyone. I believe everyone can find a friend out there that enriches them, and we can get the world to think and value compassion and social bonds just a tiny bit more than the day before. If AI can supplement people when they’re in dire straights, and it works, then sure. But it won’t ever equalize the experience of everyone, because everyone is coming from a different place, and I don’t think it will ever substitute true human connection. The goal should be enrichment, and trying to increase positivity without taking from others. Social interaction is mutually beneficial when done correctly and can accomplish that. The key and the challenge is to pair and train people in such a way that people are incrementally uplifted and not torn down. I think if AI has a place, it is best used to figure out optimal pairings that encourage that growth.
panda-giddiness 4y ago
> How about we don't ignore things that can help actual people and leave them worse off just because in theory there are also nicer sounding solutions. I appreciate this approach in general, but it's worth remembering that proposed solutions can feel right without actually being right. Indeed, these proposals are often more dangerous than those that are obviously wrong since they effect undeserved complacency. Implicitly you have assumed that AI companions could actually help the elderly stave off their loneliness, but is there any evidence that this assumption is true? Suppose, for example, that AI companions wouldn't actually help at all, but whatever company develops the software markets it as effective anyway. Some local government might read the advertisement and decide to buy a subscription to their software rather than budget for a community center. Ironically, the net effect would be to make the elderly even lonelier.

by Tenoke 4y ago

didericis 4y ago

I'm not sure I'm interpreting you correctly, but if you're claiming what I'm talking about is just theoretical, real life communities have existed throughout the entirety of our species. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for companion AIs, I just think it's horrible to consider them as anything other than a narcotic. They might work as a replacement for companionship in tragic situations where there are no other options, but there are 7 billion people on the planet. I don't see how it's impractical to encourage people to hang out with each other.

Tenoke 4y ago
Real life communities have existed yet we still have lonely people so suggesting we dont work on a solution that helps them because those exist seems like cruelty borne out of idealism. >I don't see how it's impractical to encourage people to hang out with each other. You are now writing as if you just promoted communities while your original comment I replied to specifically started with 'How about we not do that'.
- didericis 4y ago
  My original comment was advocating we not create companion AIs and try to substitute real companionship with robots, and I was in fact trying to promote the creation of real communities.
panaffa 4y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but tbh a lot of people suffer alone on this planet and designing societal structures to serve absolutely everyone's emotional needs would be impossible. An AI would be perfect for all the misfits, elderly, loners, disabled, "ugly," outcasts, etc, right?
- didericis 4y ago
  Think about what you're saying a bit. Why are the "others" you're describing destined to be alone? At the very least, couldn't they have each other? It's easier and more rewarding to just be more compassionate to others, and I don't think it's impossible to design social structures that at least make some attempt to serve everyone's emotional needs. Whether they'll be successful is circumstantial, and I don't think it's possible to make everyone perfectly content and with the perfect companions all the time, but we can encourage a culture of genuine curiosity and care for others that tries to move in that direction. Giving is only draining to those who are still in an insecure and narcissistic phase of emotional development. It's extremely rewarding to give to others and help meet their needs and encourage growth, regardless of status difference.
  - panaffa 4y ago
    I support your optimism and believe we can move in that direction. However I still believe you severely underestimate the scale of misery, solitude, and unmet desires amongst humanity. Also, you mention it won't be possible to make everyone perfectly content, implying some will be more content than others. How is that fair? Why must some have fewer friends, lovers, positive experiences, adventures, achievements etc? This is a fundamental psychological inequality in the world that could only be balanced by AI.
    - didericis 4y ago
      I’ve seen the horror of abuse and know the wrecked people that come out of mental institutions. I know the hopelessness of those without skills surrounded by predatory people. I understand the brutality of caste systems and the superficial rejection of good people for stupid fleeting status games. I understand the history of the world and current and past slavery and all the brutality we inflict on each other. But I think we can try to do just a bit better than yesterday, and make our little part of the world better if we’re proper stewards. I’d rather die trying to do that and teach others than to roll over and allow the world to degenerate without any kind of fight, or give an opiate to a person to whom I could instead give a cure. I think focusing on inequality is an egregious mistake, and is a consequence of a perspective where comparison to others is paramount. Worth and contentment should not be viewed as related to the circumstances of others, it should be something each of us compares to our own prior circumstances. If we are doing better than we were yesterday, that is immensely positive. And I believe that is possible for everyone. I believe everyone can find a friend out there that enriches them, and we can get the world to think and value compassion and social bonds just a tiny bit more than the day before. If AI can supplement people when they’re in dire straights, and it works, then sure. But it won’t ever equalize the experience of everyone, because everyone is coming from a different place, and I don’t think it will ever substitute true human connection. The goal should be enrichment, and trying to increase positivity without taking from others. Social interaction is mutually beneficial when done correctly and can accomplish that. The key and the challenge is to pair and train people in such a way that people are incrementally uplifted and not torn down. I think if AI has a place, it is best used to figure out optimal pairings that encourage that growth.

panda-giddiness 4y ago

> How about we don't ignore things that can help actual people and leave them worse off just because in theory there are also nicer sounding solutions. I appreciate this approach in general, but it's worth remembering that proposed solutions can feel right without actually being right. Indeed, these proposals are often more dangerous than those that are obviously wrong since they effect undeserved complacency. Implicitly you have assumed that AI companions could actually help the elderly stave off their loneliness, but is there any evidence that this assumption is true? Suppose, for example, that AI companions wouldn't actually help at all, but whatever company develops the software markets it as effective anyway. Some local government might read the advertisement and decide to buy a subscription to their software rather than budget for a community center. Ironically, the net effect would be to make the elderly even lonelier.