4 ms·

Grand new futures have to take baby steps and actually be used along the way to get to something incredible. I don't think it's right to completely write off th

by dbish 3y ago

Grand new futures have to take baby steps and actually be used along the way to get to something incredible. I don't think it's right to completely write off things like this since they are testing and proving grounds. For example, in this case a virtual influence, however vapid that might seem, can prove out more of the "digital cloning" type tech that will allow for you and your likeness to talk to your quadruple great grandkids and leave some of your essence behind, or have an AI that is far more realistic then anything today that someone interacts with daily for any number of things (which Asimov has in many stories). It isn't a black and white "this is good" or "this is bad" use of tech.

nateskulic 3y ago
> leave some of your essence behind Sounds egotistical. > have an AI that is far more realistic then anything today that someone interacts with daily for any number of things How is this good?
- dbish 3y ago
  I don't think it's egotistical, I would love to ask some questions to my great great grandparents, learn more about our family, what things were like for them back then, and more. I assume (and hope) my descendants would be interested in the same one day. Re: more realistic AI, I don't know if "good" is the word, fun, easier to chat with? I'd love to have a smarter Alexa-like assistant who I can pop up on a screen or jump into where I am and have a chat with, have her pull up information for me, feel like she's really there working with me or helping out around the house. People love the human side of AIs so it's not just a cold interaction, it was always common for people to say "thank you" to alexa and write in saying they thought it was really nice when she would respond for example. I know I personally like that too. Even for video games it would be awesome to have very realistic NPCs you can interact with, keep embodied in the game.
jazzyjackson 3y ago
> "digital cloning" type tech that will allow for you and your likeness to talk to your quadruple great grandkids and leave some of your essence behind yeah i'm with the luddites on this one, let the dead rest. talking to a simulation of your ancestors for $19.99/month after 30 free trial, get out of town. A version of this I enjoyed? Visiting the living museum at plymouth, massachusets. A friend of mine got to meet and have her photo taken with an actor portraying her 7x-great-grandfather that came over on the mayflower. It was sweet for him to stay in character while they chatted about their different lives. It was an interaction between humans. All that facebook wants to do for its mission of connecting the world is take up marketshare of time we could be using to interact with each other, and interact with their softwate instead. its gross.
- happytiger 3y ago
  There is a very large gap between ancestor.com and ancestor.ai: one records the past; the other resurrects it. That’s the “digital fetishization” I’m talking about — and “we” as people are not giant tech companies pushing a dystopian vision of interaction on others. That vision comes from the big tech companies, a kind of top down commandment of societal direction accompanied by impossible to ignore salaries that still manages to instill uneasiness in those who build inside of the system. Except, for those who won’t see it for what it is. “Give it a chance, it’ll help the disabled.” “If you want a better future, you’ll have to accept this worthless phase as we step towards it.” It’s why I call it a fetish — people regurgitate the same mass media points presented in articles to defend the system of mass media even while their whole worldview is usurped by that media. Profilism at its finest. The issue is that tech is being used to insert an interface in every aspect of our lives. This creates an approximation of life but within the control of vapid and sometimes sinister overlord companies who definitely do not appear to be worried about the resulting mental health and societal consequences. Life is not a proxy, and it’s not worth sacrificing our connection so that we can live in a pessimistic vision of society that forces a monetized corporation as a proxy for every sense we have and every connection we make. I’m no saying it’s all bad or something banal. I’m just saying these companies seem to be architects of deeply pessimistic visions of the future and exploitationist in their utopian futurism. To your point the idea of resurrecting the dead is automatically embraced by this vision. And it’s amazing technically and could be deeply interesting. But it’s not necessarily good, or as good as genuine human interaction, or if you really think about it — our grief — to which it by nature replaces and will not leave alone or to be natural. Is this good? Is this progress? Can’t we harness the machines and cash of these gigantic companies to explore use cases for more positive directions than constant entertainment, emotional avoidance, or procuring a proxy for social interactions? I think I am also a Luddite. A Luddite with a cell phone and a laptop and a schedule for digital transformation that I have to keep.

by dbish 3y ago

nateskulic 3y ago

> leave some of your essence behind Sounds egotistical. > have an AI that is far more realistic then anything today that someone interacts with daily for any number of things How is this good?

dbish 3y ago
I don't think it's egotistical, I would love to ask some questions to my great great grandparents, learn more about our family, what things were like for them back then, and more. I assume (and hope) my descendants would be interested in the same one day. Re: more realistic AI, I don't know if "good" is the word, fun, easier to chat with? I'd love to have a smarter Alexa-like assistant who I can pop up on a screen or jump into where I am and have a chat with, have her pull up information for me, feel like she's really there working with me or helping out around the house. People love the human side of AIs so it's not just a cold interaction, it was always common for people to say "thank you" to alexa and write in saying they thought it was really nice when she would respond for example. I know I personally like that too. Even for video games it would be awesome to have very realistic NPCs you can interact with, keep embodied in the game.

jazzyjackson 3y ago

> "digital cloning" type tech that will allow for you and your likeness to talk to your quadruple great grandkids and leave some of your essence behind yeah i'm with the luddites on this one, let the dead rest. talking to a simulation of your ancestors for $19.99/month after 30 free trial, get out of town. A version of this I enjoyed? Visiting the living museum at plymouth, massachusets. A friend of mine got to meet and have her photo taken with an actor portraying her 7x-great-grandfather that came over on the mayflower. It was sweet for him to stay in character while they chatted about their different lives. It was an interaction between humans. All that facebook wants to do for its mission of connecting the world is take up marketshare of time we could be using to interact with each other, and interact with their softwate instead. its gross.

happytiger 3y ago
There is a very large gap between ancestor.com and ancestor.ai: one records the past; the other resurrects it. That’s the “digital fetishization” I’m talking about — and “we” as people are not giant tech companies pushing a dystopian vision of interaction on others. That vision comes from the big tech companies, a kind of top down commandment of societal direction accompanied by impossible to ignore salaries that still manages to instill uneasiness in those who build inside of the system. Except, for those who won’t see it for what it is. “Give it a chance, it’ll help the disabled.” “If you want a better future, you’ll have to accept this worthless phase as we step towards it.” It’s why I call it a fetish — people regurgitate the same mass media points presented in articles to defend the system of mass media even while their whole worldview is usurped by that media. Profilism at its finest. The issue is that tech is being used to insert an interface in every aspect of our lives. This creates an approximation of life but within the control of vapid and sometimes sinister overlord companies who definitely do not appear to be worried about the resulting mental health and societal consequences. Life is not a proxy, and it’s not worth sacrificing our connection so that we can live in a pessimistic vision of society that forces a monetized corporation as a proxy for every sense we have and every connection we make. I’m no saying it’s all bad or something banal. I’m just saying these companies seem to be architects of deeply pessimistic visions of the future and exploitationist in their utopian futurism. To your point the idea of resurrecting the dead is automatically embraced by this vision. And it’s amazing technically and could be deeply interesting. But it’s not necessarily good, or as good as genuine human interaction, or if you really think about it — our grief — to which it by nature replaces and will not leave alone or to be natural. Is this good? Is this progress? Can’t we harness the machines and cash of these gigantic companies to explore use cases for more positive directions than constant entertainment, emotional avoidance, or procuring a proxy for social interactions? I think I am also a Luddite. A Luddite with a cell phone and a laptop and a schedule for digital transformation that I have to keep.