4 ms·

I confess my first reaction to this is one of revulsion. Like a lot of GPT-related things, people are using it to cheapen something valuable. On the one hand,

I confess my first reaction to this is one of revulsion. Like a lot of GPT-related things, people are using it to cheapen something valuable. On the one hand, I get that people find journaling prompts worthwhile. So it seems to me that ways to generate them might be worth doing. And indeed, you can find a great variety of products that provide that: https://www.google.com/search?q=journaling+prompt+products https://www.google.com/search?q=journaling+prompt+products So I get that some sort of AI-driven way to provide better or cheaper prompts could be good. But to me this is drawing on our built-up reaction to actual humans writing actual prose. And in the process, undermining that. Sort of the same way that spam is not just a problem because of the individual pieces of spam, but because they degrade the perceived value of the medium as a whole. Or like how the artificiality of a manager-driven icebreaker read off cards can push people apart rather than bringing them together. So what I'd rather see is some AI product that solves the same problem without pretending to be human.

31337Logic 4y ago
Thank you for this thoughtful and articulate reply.
bwanab 4y ago
I understand what you're saying, but isn't there value in the notion of being able to chat with a historical figure that one would otherwise never be able to do? Stepping away from the obvious like Socrates, I'd love to be able to chat economics with David Hume. What I'd really like to do is chat with friends all of whom are familiar with Hume, but the problem is that I don't have any friends who have any knowledge at all about him, that's if they've ever heard of him at all.
- blowski 4y ago
  What is it about David Hume specifically that you’d want to talk with him? His intelligence?
- soneca 4y ago
  I don’t know if there is value for others, but, for me, there is probably negative value in doing what you described. I’d much rather not talk with anyone about Hume or equivalent, than talk to an AI mimicking them.
- wpietri 4y ago
  I'm sorry to break it to you, but you can't chat with a historical figure. They are dead. The best you can get is a simulation. In this case, a pretty bad one. Is it possible that we'll eventually develop AGI such that we can make a really good simulation of Hume? My Magic 8 Ball says, "ASK AGAIN LATER". The Magic 8 Ball being somewhat better, in that everybody can easily tell that nobody's home, and so they won't mistake it for something they can have a real conversation with.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    This is a Black Mirror episode, if anyone's wondering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Right_Back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Right_Back
  - Nevermark 4y ago
    But the dead "speak" to us with productive effect all the time. Through books, adoption of their methods, their original perspectives applied to many problems they faced, and other means. When a friend uses the Socratic method to talk to you, they are channelling an approach for examining thinking inspired by Socrates. It doesn't matter that Socrates is dead. There is still utility in using his, or a similar, approach. Likewise for the conversational, or analytical, styles of other living or dead people, famous for having a distinct and useful approach to ideas or problems. I can't wait to put Richard Feynman in my pocket! And no, I am surely not joking!
    - wpietri 4y ago
      I think using "speak" as a metaphor is fine. I think it is bad to confuse it with a synthetic pseudo-conversation along the way to confusing it with an actual conversation. Ouija boards are neat, but let's please keep straight what's going on when somebody uses them.
      - Nevermark 4y ago
        Well, of course it is a metaphor. > Through books, [...] methods, [...] perspectives [...], and other means. People are used to metaphors, and this is an extremely common one! People also pervasively use the synecdoche of talking about the creative output of human beings as if it were the person themselves. Refer to "Bach", when we mean his music. Say "Einstein tells us" to refer to an implication of one of his equations that Einstein himself might never have addressed directly, etc. Common figures of speech are unlikely to put us on the precipice of a mass delusion regarding literal communication with the dead or resurrection.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- O1111OOO 4y ago
  All the replies, so far, seem to be negative and remind me of how one would react to Star Trek's holo-addiction (https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Holo-addiction https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Holo-addiction): "a psychological disorder in which a person preferred the fictional world of the holodeck to the real world." On the other hand, there's the therapeutic benefit of talking to yourself, which I think has been well established (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=therapeutic+value+of+talking+to+yourself https://duckduckgo.com/?q=therapeutic+value+of+talking+to+yo...). We also tend to have conflict resolving inner monologues all the time, in addition to conflict resolving dreams that sometimes create entire worlds for us. So... with those two things in play - I like the idea of an AI creating a neural net mimicking (or approximating) the knowledge and (public) personality of past/current people. It could be fun in the same way an immersive film is fun and sometimes insightful. As long as we never lose sight of the fictional nature of the interaction. ---------------- sidenote: Our minds, are in a sense, original materials and assets. It can be argued that they are our intellectual property. It does beg the question if mimicking a person can be protected from any and all pursuits - commercial or otherwise.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    > It could be fun in the same way an immersive film is fun and sometimes insightful. As long as we never lose sight of the fictional nature of the interaction. A good example, but perhaps not in the way you think. Historical films have people who make at least attempt to hew to the historical truth. But despite that, historians have a raft of complaints about movies being fonts of enduring myths. GPT models, at least, don't have any idea about truth at all, and the individual, on-the-fly nature of the content makes it very difficult to catch errors as one would for film.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  People are making the technical argument about it not really being them, and I think that's important. But more important to me is the moral one: it is wrong to put the words of the living in the mouths of the dead. We should not distance ourselves from the reality of death, or construct for ourselves any illusions about its finality or completeness. The dead are dead, we cannot change that, we should not even try. And so it will be for us, and any true engagement with life is in contrast to that inevitable truth.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Ooh, that's very interesting. Our culture has such a problem with acknowledging death anyhow. We don't need to dig the hole deeper.
MWil 4y ago
"people are using it to cheapen something valuable." What about something more sensitive like veteran suicidal ideations where the options are more commonly experienced by the afflicted as (NOT saying the reality, but the seeming): a) Say nothing, keep it in; or b) Say something, often times with unintended consequences (involuntary admission); It sounds like journaling might be something you consider more akin to either an art or a skill to develop, but what about when the point is just to say SOMETHING and whether there's any benefits to that?
- klooney 4y ago
  Give it time, and they'll probably be required to wire chat bots up as mandatory reporters :/
- wpietri 4y ago
  Good question, but I think we have to keep going. What about veterans who use it for a while? Are they helped or harmed? Does it make them more or less likely to talk to a real person? Does it make them more or less likely to kill themselves? Is it psychologically helpful or harmful when they see through the illusion that they're having a real conversation and realize this is just Eliza on steroids and that they're just as alone as they were before? Is this better or worse than just giving them a workbook or a deck of prompts written by actual psychologists who treat veterans? I'm all for experimentation. What I'm questioning is the thoughtless application of shiny new technologies without any consideration of what the downside costs and risks might be.
  - gmadsen 4y ago
    There is considerable research on this already, of less sophisticated models. The research as it stands now, seems to be really positive. So I'm not quite sure its as thoughtless as you state.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      Is there? On the specific points I raised? I don't see any cited here. Perhaps you could share some?
klooney 4y ago
Is it that different from substituting television for relationships? At least it's a little more interactive.
- bordercases 4y ago
  This is hardly a choice between two evils.
- wpietri 4y ago
  But it's also less obviously a problem. People have a vocabulary around binge-watching and goblin mode. Or we've come to learn how Facebook, touted as a beneficial alternative to one-way entertainment, can cause psychological harm. Is this different? Worse? Better? Probably all three. Maybe we should find out.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kobalsky 4y ago
>>> "people are using it to cheapen something valuable." Since Socrates was mentioned in the article it made me think how he thought that written information was not an effective way of education. He's was not wrong in that tutoring will beat books every day, but the benefits they brought when massively produced may have not been even in their imaginations at the time.
simple10 4y ago
Understandable position. But I've come to an alternate perspective after studying hypnotherapy and working with therapists over the past year. In a sense, all conversations are with ourselves. We create a mental model of the other person in our minds when conversing. A tool that helps people explore their own mind by facilitating these anthropomorphic models could prove immensely valuable for personal growth. As long as people understand they're talking to a bot, it could potentially allow for deeper introspection without the fear of judgement. A lot of the initial friction in therapy is getting people comfortable in sharing the deeper truth vs saying what they think they are expected to say to another human. As for the need for the bot to act as a human, I think this is actually important to the efficacy. Our minds are evolved to anthropomorphize everything. A well trained bot will help people feel like they are talking directly to specific personas within their own mind. I don't think it will replace therapists, but I do think it will significantly aid in two ways: 1) helping more people get started with therapy, 2) as a companion tool for work between sessions with a live human.
- wpietri 4y ago
  In a sense, anything is anything. RealDolls are, in a sense, romantic partners. But that doesn't mean that it is healthy or wise to encourage widespread adoption of them as substitutes, at least without further study as to the long-term risks. Are there possibilities here? Sure. And we should investigate them. But we should not get high on our own supply of technoutopianism.

31337Logic 4y ago

Thank you for this thoughtful and articulate reply.

bwanab 4y ago

I understand what you're saying, but isn't there value in the notion of being able to chat with a historical figure that one would otherwise never be able to do? Stepping away from the obvious like Socrates, I'd love to be able to chat economics with David Hume. What I'd really like to do is chat with friends all of whom are familiar with Hume, but the problem is that I don't have any friends who have any knowledge at all about him, that's if they've ever heard of him at all.

blowski 4y ago
What is it about David Hume specifically that you’d want to talk with him? His intelligence?
soneca 4y ago
I don’t know if there is value for others, but, for me, there is probably negative value in doing what you described. I’d much rather not talk with anyone about Hume or equivalent, than talk to an AI mimicking them.
wpietri 4y ago
I'm sorry to break it to you, but you can't chat with a historical figure. They are dead. The best you can get is a simulation. In this case, a pretty bad one. Is it possible that we'll eventually develop AGI such that we can make a really good simulation of Hume? My Magic 8 Ball says, "ASK AGAIN LATER". The Magic 8 Ball being somewhat better, in that everybody can easily tell that nobody's home, and so they won't mistake it for something they can have a real conversation with.
- kibwen 4y ago
  This is a Black Mirror episode, if anyone's wondering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Right_Back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Right_Back
- Nevermark 4y ago
  But the dead "speak" to us with productive effect all the time. Through books, adoption of their methods, their original perspectives applied to many problems they faced, and other means. When a friend uses the Socratic method to talk to you, they are channelling an approach for examining thinking inspired by Socrates. It doesn't matter that Socrates is dead. There is still utility in using his, or a similar, approach. Likewise for the conversational, or analytical, styles of other living or dead people, famous for having a distinct and useful approach to ideas or problems. I can't wait to put Richard Feynman in my pocket! And no, I am surely not joking!
  - wpietri 4y ago
    I think using "speak" as a metaphor is fine. I think it is bad to confuse it with a synthetic pseudo-conversation along the way to confusing it with an actual conversation. Ouija boards are neat, but let's please keep straight what's going on when somebody uses them.
    - Nevermark 4y ago
      Well, of course it is a metaphor. > Through books, [...] methods, [...] perspectives [...], and other means. People are used to metaphors, and this is an extremely common one! People also pervasively use the synecdoche of talking about the creative output of human beings as if it were the person themselves. Refer to "Bach", when we mean his music. Say "Einstein tells us" to refer to an implication of one of his equations that Einstein himself might never have addressed directly, etc. Common figures of speech are unlikely to put us on the precipice of a mass delusion regarding literal communication with the dead or resurrection.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
O1111OOO 4y ago
All the replies, so far, seem to be negative and remind me of how one would react to Star Trek's holo-addiction (https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Holo-addiction https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Holo-addiction): "a psychological disorder in which a person preferred the fictional world of the holodeck to the real world." On the other hand, there's the therapeutic benefit of talking to yourself, which I think has been well established (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=therapeutic+value+of+talking+to+yourself https://duckduckgo.com/?q=therapeutic+value+of+talking+to+yo...). We also tend to have conflict resolving inner monologues all the time, in addition to conflict resolving dreams that sometimes create entire worlds for us. So... with those two things in play - I like the idea of an AI creating a neural net mimicking (or approximating) the knowledge and (public) personality of past/current people. It could be fun in the same way an immersive film is fun and sometimes insightful. As long as we never lose sight of the fictional nature of the interaction. ---------------- sidenote: Our minds, are in a sense, original materials and assets. It can be argued that they are our intellectual property. It does beg the question if mimicking a person can be protected from any and all pursuits - commercial or otherwise.
- wpietri 4y ago
  > It could be fun in the same way an immersive film is fun and sometimes insightful. As long as we never lose sight of the fictional nature of the interaction. A good example, but perhaps not in the way you think. Historical films have people who make at least attempt to hew to the historical truth. But despite that, historians have a raft of complaints about movies being fonts of enduring myths. GPT models, at least, don't have any idea about truth at all, and the individual, on-the-fly nature of the content makes it very difficult to catch errors as one would for film.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
People are making the technical argument about it not really being them, and I think that's important. But more important to me is the moral one: it is wrong to put the words of the living in the mouths of the dead. We should not distance ourselves from the reality of death, or construct for ourselves any illusions about its finality or completeness. The dead are dead, we cannot change that, we should not even try. And so it will be for us, and any true engagement with life is in contrast to that inevitable truth.
- wpietri 4y ago
  Ooh, that's very interesting. Our culture has such a problem with acknowledging death anyhow. We don't need to dig the hole deeper.

MWil 4y ago

"people are using it to cheapen something valuable." What about something more sensitive like veteran suicidal ideations where the options are more commonly experienced by the afflicted as (NOT saying the reality, but the seeming): a) Say nothing, keep it in; or b) Say something, often times with unintended consequences (involuntary admission); It sounds like journaling might be something you consider more akin to either an art or a skill to develop, but what about when the point is just to say SOMETHING and whether there's any benefits to that?

klooney 4y ago
Give it time, and they'll probably be required to wire chat bots up as mandatory reporters :/
wpietri 4y ago
Good question, but I think we have to keep going. What about veterans who use it for a while? Are they helped or harmed? Does it make them more or less likely to talk to a real person? Does it make them more or less likely to kill themselves? Is it psychologically helpful or harmful when they see through the illusion that they're having a real conversation and realize this is just Eliza on steroids and that they're just as alone as they were before? Is this better or worse than just giving them a workbook or a deck of prompts written by actual psychologists who treat veterans? I'm all for experimentation. What I'm questioning is the thoughtless application of shiny new technologies without any consideration of what the downside costs and risks might be.
- gmadsen 4y ago
  There is considerable research on this already, of less sophisticated models. The research as it stands now, seems to be really positive. So I'm not quite sure its as thoughtless as you state.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Is there? On the specific points I raised? I don't see any cited here. Perhaps you could share some?

klooney 4y ago

Is it that different from substituting television for relationships? At least it's a little more interactive.

bordercases 4y ago
This is hardly a choice between two evils.
wpietri 4y ago
But it's also less obviously a problem. People have a vocabulary around binge-watching and goblin mode. Or we've come to learn how Facebook, touted as a beneficial alternative to one-way entertainment, can cause psychological harm. Is this different? Worse? Better? Probably all three. Maybe we should find out.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kobalsky 4y ago

>>> "people are using it to cheapen something valuable." Since Socrates was mentioned in the article it made me think how he thought that written information was not an effective way of education. He's was not wrong in that tutoring will beat books every day, but the benefits they brought when massively produced may have not been even in their imaginations at the time.

simple10 4y ago

Understandable position. But I've come to an alternate perspective after studying hypnotherapy and working with therapists over the past year. In a sense, all conversations are with ourselves. We create a mental model of the other person in our minds when conversing. A tool that helps people explore their own mind by facilitating these anthropomorphic models could prove immensely valuable for personal growth. As long as people understand they're talking to a bot, it could potentially allow for deeper introspection without the fear of judgement. A lot of the initial friction in therapy is getting people comfortable in sharing the deeper truth vs saying what they think they are expected to say to another human. As for the need for the bot to act as a human, I think this is actually important to the efficacy. Our minds are evolved to anthropomorphize everything. A well trained bot will help people feel like they are talking directly to specific personas within their own mind. I don't think it will replace therapists, but I do think it will significantly aid in two ways: 1) helping more people get started with therapy, 2) as a companion tool for work between sessions with a live human.

wpietri 4y ago
In a sense, anything is anything. RealDolls are, in a sense, romantic partners. But that doesn't mean that it is healthy or wise to encourage widespread adoption of them as substitutes, at least without further study as to the long-term risks. Are there possibilities here? Sure. And we should investigate them. But we should not get high on our own supply of technoutopianism.