4 ms·

> The willingness to live in make believe, and the willingness to treat that make believe as if it were reality. Everyone acts on fictions every day, some are

> The willingness to live in make believe, and the willingness to treat that make believe as if it were reality. Everyone acts on fictions every day, some are just socially acceptable. Like, do you think countries and currency really exist, or are they really just collective fictions we find useful?

johnea 1y ago
You make a very good example of exactly what I'm talking about. Countries are indeed fictional, and the misplaced belief that they are in some way a natural reality is a significant part of what leads people to start talking about killing each other in the name of their country. Fictional entities aren't just ubiquitous, they're essential to civilization. Even laws against murder are fictional entities, but I don't think any reasonable person would argue for their elimination on that basis. The point isn't whether fictional entities exist or not, or that they're all inherently bad or not, it's on maintaining an understanding of what's fictional and what's reality. Thinking a fictional character on your computer screen is a life relationship partner is a slip away from reality that is surely a mental illness.
- drdaeman 1y ago
  [dead]
- naasking 1y ago
  > Countries are indeed fictional, and the misplaced belief that they are in some way a natural reality is a significant part of what leads people to start talking about killing each other in the name of their country. No, people kill each other because others have things they want, countries are just a means of organizing such endeavours, but let's not go on that tangent. The point of accepting that we all depend on fictions shows that real vs. fictional is not a meaningful measure of healthy vs. unhealthy, and the latter is what we should actually care about, not the former. > Thinking a fictional character on your computer screen is a life relationship partner is a slip away from reality that is surely a mental illness. You're just arguing for fictions that are the status quo as if they're "healthy" without having to do the hard work of proving they're actually healthy, or the new "virtual" thing is actually harmful. The distinction of real vs. fiction is simply not relevant, what's healthy or unhealthy is what's relevant, but you don't get to call it unhealthy without empirical evidence to support such an assertion which is why you're trying to fall back on calling it "not real", and leaving "not real implies unhealthy" implicit. Except "not real implies unhealthy" is false.
more_corn 1y ago
Religions. Corporations. Legal authority. All exist only because we believe in them. You could go to the extreme and say that every relationship exists in two copies. One in the mind of the first member and the other in the mind of the second. Ai relationships are different because they don’t exist in the mind of the ai. There’s no mind there’s an architecture that does not even attempt to simulate a mind.
- naasking 1y ago
  > Ai relationships are different because they don’t exist in the mind of the ai. There’s no mind there’s an architecture that does not even attempt to simulate a mind. Even setting aside the question of AI minds, I fully accept that an AI relationship is different. How does it then obviously follow that this is bad or unhealthy for the human though? This part just doesn't follow from anything stated thus far. The other fictions that we've normalized can be both bad and good, depending on the circumstances.
thaw13579 1y ago
This use of the term "fiction" is mostly popularized by Yuval Noah Harari, and while correct in some sense, I find it tends to favor its meanings of falseness and unreality. Another more widely used term is "social constructs", which seems preferable, at least to me, because it's emphasizes that we are building something together, which has real and practice impacts on people's lives, often through explicit legal agreements, rules, and norms. I do think the more common usage of the term "fiction" fits these AI uses much better, that is, literature involving imaginary things. It can still evoke real feelings and nudge you towards certain behaviors, but importantly, if you decide to ignore the chatbot, there's no risk of imprisonment by some 3rd party (like if you ignore the social constructs of taxes or national borders). Perhaps one way to differentiate these is that "singular fictions" impose no obligations to 3rd parties, while "collective fictions" / "social constructs" do?

johnea 1y ago

You make a very good example of exactly what I'm talking about. Countries are indeed fictional, and the misplaced belief that they are in some way a natural reality is a significant part of what leads people to start talking about killing each other in the name of their country. Fictional entities aren't just ubiquitous, they're essential to civilization. Even laws against murder are fictional entities, but I don't think any reasonable person would argue for their elimination on that basis. The point isn't whether fictional entities exist or not, or that they're all inherently bad or not, it's on maintaining an understanding of what's fictional and what's reality. Thinking a fictional character on your computer screen is a life relationship partner is a slip away from reality that is surely a mental illness.

drdaeman 1y ago
[dead]
naasking 1y ago
> Countries are indeed fictional, and the misplaced belief that they are in some way a natural reality is a significant part of what leads people to start talking about killing each other in the name of their country. No, people kill each other because others have things they want, countries are just a means of organizing such endeavours, but let's not go on that tangent. The point of accepting that we all depend on fictions shows that real vs. fictional is not a meaningful measure of healthy vs. unhealthy, and the latter is what we should actually care about, not the former. > Thinking a fictional character on your computer screen is a life relationship partner is a slip away from reality that is surely a mental illness. You're just arguing for fictions that are the status quo as if they're "healthy" without having to do the hard work of proving they're actually healthy, or the new "virtual" thing is actually harmful. The distinction of real vs. fiction is simply not relevant, what's healthy or unhealthy is what's relevant, but you don't get to call it unhealthy without empirical evidence to support such an assertion which is why you're trying to fall back on calling it "not real", and leaving "not real implies unhealthy" implicit. Except "not real implies unhealthy" is false.

more_corn 1y ago

Religions. Corporations. Legal authority. All exist only because we believe in them. You could go to the extreme and say that every relationship exists in two copies. One in the mind of the first member and the other in the mind of the second. Ai relationships are different because they don’t exist in the mind of the ai. There’s no mind there’s an architecture that does not even attempt to simulate a mind.

naasking 1y ago
> Ai relationships are different because they don’t exist in the mind of the ai. There’s no mind there’s an architecture that does not even attempt to simulate a mind. Even setting aside the question of AI minds, I fully accept that an AI relationship is different. How does it then obviously follow that this is bad or unhealthy for the human though? This part just doesn't follow from anything stated thus far. The other fictions that we've normalized can be both bad and good, depending on the circumstances.

thaw13579 1y ago

This use of the term "fiction" is mostly popularized by Yuval Noah Harari, and while correct in some sense, I find it tends to favor its meanings of falseness and unreality. Another more widely used term is "social constructs", which seems preferable, at least to me, because it's emphasizes that we are building something together, which has real and practice impacts on people's lives, often through explicit legal agreements, rules, and norms. I do think the more common usage of the term "fiction" fits these AI uses much better, that is, literature involving imaginary things. It can still evoke real feelings and nudge you towards certain behaviors, but importantly, if you decide to ignore the chatbot, there's no risk of imprisonment by some 3rd party (like if you ignore the social constructs of taxes or national borders). Perhaps one way to differentiate these is that "singular fictions" impose no obligations to 3rd parties, while "collective fictions" / "social constructs" do?