Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Make up a guy

antipope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 176 posts

Re: Make up a guy

#151

Post by majewsky »

mik1998 wrote: post #73
b112 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I’m missing something, it amounts to making a slave race out of someone’s mind scan. So I’m someone who never eats animals nor animal products. I have always wondered why reincarnationists, when I talk to them, presume time is a directly mapped thing. I say to them, how do you not know, there is only one "soul", but you are just seeing it at different points in existence? How do you not know that you are that…

Reminds me of The Egg: http://galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html

Since we're linking to The Egg, we should also link to the animated narration of it by Kurzgesagt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6fcK_fRYaI

Re: Make up a guy

#152

Post by hvl2 »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #105
hvl2 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think this is horrific, then you apparently assume that it has "consciousness" rather than only simulating it. A true AGI might be intelligent but only simulate consciousness. And yes, it might be difficult to tell the difference. This reminds me of Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment. In order to upgrade the Chinese Room to modern deep learning: suppose we run a brain image by instructing each human bein…

For that matter, you might only be simulating consciousness. How could you prove otherwise? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though, and treat you as if you were really conscious.

Well, you should give me the benefit of the doubt because I'm like you: a bag of meat.

Re: Make up a guy

#153

Post by bambax »

blinding-streak wrote: post #56

Speaking of making a person.. at this startup I worked at years ago (before LinkedIn existed), it was a tiny shop and we were all maxed out time-wise. It was frustrating when we had to deal with incredibly persistent salespeople that wouldn't take no for an answer, and others that preyed on our time relentlessly for no apparent reason. So as a joke we invented a fake employee with a fake name. I think his first name…

> before LinkedIn existed

It's surprisingly easy to make up a LinkedIn profile. I have one that has over 50 connections. Many sales people accept connections requests, and some non-sales people do as well. It just goes on from there.

I use him for looking up people without leaving a trace, and it's generally great fun to make him do posts on various topics.

I didn't put much effort in it though (for example, his photo is just a random stock photo, not anything AI-generated). I wonder how many virtual people exist on social networks.

Re: Make up a guy

#154

Post by bambax »

paleotrope wrote: post #97
blinding-streak wrote: post #56

Speaking of making a person.. at this startup I worked at years ago (before LinkedIn existed), it was a tiny shop and we were all maxed out time-wise. It was frustrating when we had to deal with incredibly persistent salespeople that wouldn't take no for an answer, and others that preyed on our time relentlessly for no apparent reason. So as a joke we invented a fake employee with a fake name. I think his first name…

I wonder if this is going to change with time. Most people of a certain age remember a time when answering the phone and talking to the other person was a social more. This is the social courtesy that telemarketers and scammers have been using for years now. But there's another way. Just hang up on them. I know it's considered hostile but it's just an outdated social more at this point.

I never pick up the phone if the caller isn't already in my contacts. They can leave a message and I may call back, or not. But the risk of being caught into a stupid sales call for a new energy supplier or some such is just too great.

Re: Make up a guy

#155

Post by bambax »

Dudeman112 wrote: post #106
ianai wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it. Unless I’m missing something, it amounts to making a slave race out of someone’s mind scan. So I’m someone who never eats animals nor animal products. This is in part from the sheer scale of that industry. But also from simply interacting with non-humans and knowing there’s enough intelligence there for me to honor and be horrified at the suffering or destruction of it. But I’m clearly in the minority here…

>Unless I’m missing something, it amounts to making a slave race out of someone’s mind scan People most of the time have scope insensitivity, while sometimes it hits home There is always death at a relatively soon point in the real world. The scan slave can be tortured with the worst methods you can think of for hundreds of thousands of relative millennia at will, and it will have happened countless times for differe…

> There is no such relief in the story

I have not yet read the story but if the human is recreated every time from the same immutable data, and doesn't have any recollection of other experiences, then each new instance is pretty much exactly like us? And death is indeed a relief because the instance that does die stops suffering?

Re: Make up a guy

#156

Post by cstross »

NOTE: antipope.org is my blog, but this was a guest blog essay by qntm, who can more commonly be found at https://qntm.org/

(Mentioning this because I've just seem some drive-by commenters attributing "Lena" to me. I didn't write that; I wish I could.)

Re: Make up a guy

#157

Post by cstross »

blinding-streak wrote: post #56

Speaking of making a person.. at this startup I worked at years ago (before LinkedIn existed), it was a tiny shop and we were all maxed out time-wise. It was frustrating when we had to deal with incredibly persistent salespeople that wouldn't take no for an answer, and others that preyed on our time relentlessly for no apparent reason. So as a joke we invented a fake employee with a fake name. I think his first name…

And then again, if you really hate your telesales callers, put them on hold with some hold music like this:

https://soundcloud.com/user-237714155/sales-call-abyss

Explanation of how/why they came up with it here: https://www.theregister.com/2016/04/29/it_helpdesk_creates_o...

Re: Make up a guy

#158

Post by ravi-delia »

hvl2 wrote: post #92
codeflo wrote: post #3

I encountered the author’s short story that’s linked in the article, Lena [1], a while ago, possibly here on HN. It’s really great, but be warned. It’s one of the most deeply disturbing sci-fi horror stories I’ve ever seen. To be clear, most of the horror is implied rather than described, which I think only makes it worse. Part of me wishes I had never read it. Highly recommended, but if you’re at all in doubt if you…

If you think this is horrific, then you apparently assume that it has "consciousness" rather than only simulating it. A true AGI might be intelligent but only simulate consciousness. And yes, it might be difficult to tell the difference. This reminds me of Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment. In order to upgrade the Chinese Room to modern deep learning: suppose we run a brain image by instructing each human bein…

In the narrative there really isn't any reason to think the simulations are 100% as conscious as you or I. But even if I lived in the world of Lena and suspected that uploads weren't conscious, if I were presented with a program which could speak about it's desires, had all the memories of a real person, and had to be cajoled into working with lies and fear, I would be very hesitant to use "red motivation"! Are you so confident you understand what underlies consciousness that you would take that risk?

Re: Make up a guy

#160

Post by escapedmoose »

kubanczyk wrote: post #146
yboris wrote: post #94

Related: Better to Never Have Been by David Benatar It's a position of antinatalism . Antinatalist philosophy roughly claims that sentient beings are harmed when they are brought into existence, and it is therefore wrong to procreate. I think everyone ought to consider this philosophy / argument before having children - as to recognize the severity of the act. At the very least, not having children should be the defa…

Oh the utter lack of system thinking in that. Go to the desert, tell the rocks not to sit idle anymore. Go preaching to stars the futility of converting elements into energy.

Can you elaborate on your angle here? If you’re implying that humans are incapable of choosing not to procreate, that seems pretty obviously incorrect, given the vast numbers of people who make that choice. Am I interpreting your comment incorrectly?
Post reply on HN