6 ms·

Yes, every minute you spend texting or talking to a chatbot is a minute that you'd have spent talking to another human beings. Literally the only important thin

by mlsu 3mo ago

Yes, every minute you spend texting or talking to a chatbot is a minute that you'd have spent talking to another human beings. Literally the only important thing in life, the basis of all value, the formation of self-identity, comes from communication with other human beings.

Der_Einzige 3mo ago
Such radical carbon chauvinism is ontologically evil. May those who hold this view reincarnate as durian fruits or cockroaches.
- mlsu 3mo ago
  I'm sure you'd have no problem in solitary confinement. Why not make life easy?
- rel_ic 3mo ago
  Just saying: those are also carbon-based lifeforms :D
- beepbooptheory 3mo ago
  The implication that durians and roaches are somehow ontologically subaltern is a worse chauvinism.
- wraptile 3mo ago
  > May those who hold this view reincarnate as durian fruits or cockroaches don't you dare clump the best fruit in the world with cockroaches!
johnfn 3mo ago
This is such a poor mischaracterization of OP that I actually started agreeing with OP more.
- enraged_camel 3mo ago
  It's also hilariously wrong. It essentially argues, implicitly, that those who don't communicate with other humans are missing out on the "most important thing in life" and cannot form a self-identity.
  - dag100 3mo ago
    > Literally the only important thing in life, the basis of all value, the formation of self-identity, comes from communication with other human beings. I think you're mistaking their sarcasm for sincerity... especially considering the emphasis on self-identity ironically juxtaposed as originating from a decidedly non-self activity, which has all the hallmarks of being intentional... On the other hand, reading their other content leads one to believe that they may, in fact, be serious... hmm...
    - samwiseg 3mo ago
      It is unironically correct. Well, interaction with other human beings may not be the only important thing, but it is certainly far and away the most important thing.
    - mlsu 3mo ago
      An infant begins to mirror the emotions of his caregiver at 3-4 months. He can distinguish his own body in a physical mirror at 18 months.
  - mlsu 3mo ago
    Human beings require interaction with other human beings to identify the self. It is impossible to live without others. Read up on solitary confinement sometime - enough time without human companionship will drive any human being (except the schizoaffective) completely insane.
  - breezybottom 3mo ago
    Yes? That's completely true.
perching_aix 3mo ago
> every minute you spend texting or talking to a chatbot is a minute that you'd have spent talking to another human beings Very blatantly and obviously not though???
- mlsu 3mo ago
  The extent to which it's true is the extent of the evilness of the technology. Go search the phrase "ai boyfriend" on reddit sometime; imagine what it will be like when society is fully baked with this shit. You're talking to AIs all day at work. You're talking to AI's when you use social media. You're talking to AIs for therapy. You're talking to AIs on dating apps. If your answer is "well I'll simply touch grass" I agree. But most people won't which is why this is tech is immiserating and, I would argue, evil.
  - supern0va 3mo ago
    I can't help but think you're conflating cause and effect. People are using a tool (AI) to apply a band-aid to a widespread social problem (loneliness and isolation). It's possible that an "AI boyfriend" might make someone less prone to put in the continued effort to keep rolling the dice on dating apps, but the reality is that there's a more fundamental problem driving this. Also, I want this tool for work. Just because society is fubar and people are using this tool as a crutch for their inability to find a partner, doesn't mean I should lose better tooling that makes my life easier. Focus on fixing the actual problem.
    - FridgeSeal 3mo ago
      “Who cares about dirty syringes being left in the street, it’s really important for my work that I have access to the heroin I need”. Things in society don’t exist in a vacuum, and “who cares about them, so long as I get my needs” is quite literally a part of the problem being discussed.
      - perching_aix 3mo ago
        So do you find the selfish justification of heroin addicts in your example partially compelling, or are you betraying your own rhetorical standards? Just because things do not exist in a vacuum doesn't mean they should be blurred and conflated until unrecognizability. There's value in explicitly anchoring the salient aspects, and getting the cause and effect right, to the extent these can be done. Both intelligence amplification and pathological parasocialness are very real effects of this technology, and a blanket ban, a blanket halt, and similar broad and dull policies are absolutely going to be unfair and unreasonable. And even such policies would not "happen in a vacuum", there's a consequence to prohibiting something not prohibited elsewhere. Whether we can do better is where the jury is still out. I don't think an example like your dirty needles one particularly helps with this. It's asinine and inflammatory, quite the opposite to nuance-inviting, which I believe was more towards your actual intent.
broken-kebab 3mo ago
Let's not overdramatize, though. I'm not in need, or even in mood to talk to fellow humans every minute, so time spent with a clanker is not necessary taken from my human relations budget
- bredren 3mo ago
  I also think this undersells the real value of the bot, which is to handle tasks via voice that an average human either would not or could not do. In the video example with the grannies, the knitter is essentially wanting a PA. Regular folks don't have PAs. Even when that became a thing in the aughts they were all outsourced. When I've used voice chat, it has often turns into rabbit holes on very niche topics. For example, I had one start about the 1996 performance of Rage Against the Machine in Portland, Oregon that was supposed to feature Wu Tang Clan. (already outside most human's knowledge) that dove into details of the club scene in Los Angeles at the time of RATM's signing to Epic Records. Was anyone else here at that '96 show in Portland? It seems like it might be challenging to find a person on the internet able to engage on the topic. The person may exist, but not during my fleeting interest in the subject while walking to the park.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
BeetleB 3mo ago
> Yes, every minute you spend texting or talking to a chatbot is a minute that you'd have spent talking to another human beings. Human beings tend not to be available (results vary by culture). Also, imagine you're 82 years old and living alone (e.g. widower). It is believed that lack of interaction is a significant driver of cognitive decline (which is why being hard of hearing accelerates the onset of dementia). I wonder if having an LLM to talk to under those circumstances will decelerate cognitive decline?
bossyTeacher 3mo ago
> Literally the only important thing in life, the basis of all value, the formation of self-identity, comes from communication with other human beings. Is this sarcasm?

by mlsu 3mo ago

Der_Einzige 3mo ago

Such radical carbon chauvinism is ontologically evil. May those who hold this view reincarnate as durian fruits or cockroaches.

mlsu 3mo ago
I'm sure you'd have no problem in solitary confinement. Why not make life easy?
rel_ic 3mo ago
Just saying: those are also carbon-based lifeforms :D
beepbooptheory 3mo ago
The implication that durians and roaches are somehow ontologically subaltern is a worse chauvinism.
wraptile 3mo ago
> May those who hold this view reincarnate as durian fruits or cockroaches don't you dare clump the best fruit in the world with cockroaches!

johnfn 3mo ago

This is such a poor mischaracterization of OP that I actually started agreeing with OP more.

enraged_camel 3mo ago
It's also hilariously wrong. It essentially argues, implicitly, that those who don't communicate with other humans are missing out on the "most important thing in life" and cannot form a self-identity.
- dag100 3mo ago
  > Literally the only important thing in life, the basis of all value, the formation of self-identity, comes from communication with other human beings. I think you're mistaking their sarcasm for sincerity... especially considering the emphasis on self-identity ironically juxtaposed as originating from a decidedly non-self activity, which has all the hallmarks of being intentional... On the other hand, reading their other content leads one to believe that they may, in fact, be serious... hmm...
  - samwiseg 3mo ago
    It is unironically correct. Well, interaction with other human beings may not be the only important thing, but it is certainly far and away the most important thing.
  - mlsu 3mo ago
    An infant begins to mirror the emotions of his caregiver at 3-4 months. He can distinguish his own body in a physical mirror at 18 months.
- mlsu 3mo ago
  Human beings require interaction with other human beings to identify the self. It is impossible to live without others. Read up on solitary confinement sometime - enough time without human companionship will drive any human being (except the schizoaffective) completely insane.
- breezybottom 3mo ago
  Yes? That's completely true.

perching_aix 3mo ago

> every minute you spend texting or talking to a chatbot is a minute that you'd have spent talking to another human beings Very blatantly and obviously not though???

mlsu 3mo ago
The extent to which it's true is the extent of the evilness of the technology. Go search the phrase "ai boyfriend" on reddit sometime; imagine what it will be like when society is fully baked with this shit. You're talking to AIs all day at work. You're talking to AI's when you use social media. You're talking to AIs for therapy. You're talking to AIs on dating apps. If your answer is "well I'll simply touch grass" I agree. But most people won't which is why this is tech is immiserating and, I would argue, evil.
- supern0va 3mo ago
  I can't help but think you're conflating cause and effect. People are using a tool (AI) to apply a band-aid to a widespread social problem (loneliness and isolation). It's possible that an "AI boyfriend" might make someone less prone to put in the continued effort to keep rolling the dice on dating apps, but the reality is that there's a more fundamental problem driving this. Also, I want this tool for work. Just because society is fubar and people are using this tool as a crutch for their inability to find a partner, doesn't mean I should lose better tooling that makes my life easier. Focus on fixing the actual problem.
  - FridgeSeal 3mo ago
    “Who cares about dirty syringes being left in the street, it’s really important for my work that I have access to the heroin I need”. Things in society don’t exist in a vacuum, and “who cares about them, so long as I get my needs” is quite literally a part of the problem being discussed.
    - perching_aix 3mo ago
      So do you find the selfish justification of heroin addicts in your example partially compelling, or are you betraying your own rhetorical standards? Just because things do not exist in a vacuum doesn't mean they should be blurred and conflated until unrecognizability. There's value in explicitly anchoring the salient aspects, and getting the cause and effect right, to the extent these can be done. Both intelligence amplification and pathological parasocialness are very real effects of this technology, and a blanket ban, a blanket halt, and similar broad and dull policies are absolutely going to be unfair and unreasonable. And even such policies would not "happen in a vacuum", there's a consequence to prohibiting something not prohibited elsewhere. Whether we can do better is where the jury is still out. I don't think an example like your dirty needles one particularly helps with this. It's asinine and inflammatory, quite the opposite to nuance-inviting, which I believe was more towards your actual intent.

broken-kebab 3mo ago

Let's not overdramatize, though. I'm not in need, or even in mood to talk to fellow humans every minute, so time spent with a clanker is not necessary taken from my human relations budget

bredren 3mo ago
I also think this undersells the real value of the bot, which is to handle tasks via voice that an average human either would not or could not do. In the video example with the grannies, the knitter is essentially wanting a PA. Regular folks don't have PAs. Even when that became a thing in the aughts they were all outsourced. When I've used voice chat, it has often turns into rabbit holes on very niche topics. For example, I had one start about the 1996 performance of Rage Against the Machine in Portland, Oregon that was supposed to feature Wu Tang Clan. (already outside most human's knowledge) that dove into details of the club scene in Los Angeles at the time of RATM's signing to Epic Records. Was anyone else here at that '96 show in Portland? It seems like it might be challenging to find a person on the internet able to engage on the topic. The person may exist, but not during my fleeting interest in the subject while walking to the park.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

BeetleB 3mo ago

> Yes, every minute you spend texting or talking to a chatbot is a minute that you'd have spent talking to another human beings. Human beings tend not to be available (results vary by culture). Also, imagine you're 82 years old and living alone (e.g. widower). It is believed that lack of interaction is a significant driver of cognitive decline (which is why being hard of hearing accelerates the onset of dementia). I wonder if having an LLM to talk to under those circumstances will decelerate cognitive decline?

bossyTeacher 3mo ago

> Literally the only important thing in life, the basis of all value, the formation of self-identity, comes from communication with other human beings. Is this sarcasm?