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

Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 548 posts

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#41

Post by ergonaught »

cynicalsecurity wrote: post #20

AI is simply a tool, it all depends on how we are going to use it.

Everything is simply a tool and it always depends on how the tool is used.

The problems are automation and scale, low barriers to entry for "negative outcome" usage, the absence of sociocultural system developments adequate to adapt productively, total lack of forethought/planning regarding consequence in every area, and, well, humans.

Falling back to the "it's just a tool" thing is no more useful than saying nuclear weapons are just a tool and it depends on how they're used. It's true but irrelevant.

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#42

Post by [deleted] »

anonylizard wrote: post #22
protontypes wrote: post #19

The rapid development of AI could lead to people generally being frightened away from digital products. In my own social environment, I see more and more people who used to be very enthusiastic about computers turning away to more analog entertainment and work. Blindly developing technology only as part of the "power play" without solving real problems is no longer justifiable. AI is starting to create significantly…

The sheer audacity to claim that 'fossil fuel industry' has "created significantly more problems than it has actually solved" If you leave the SF bubble for a split second, and think about the foundations of modern industry, you would realize fossil fuels have created tectonic value for society, that's why transitioning away is so so hard. All the 'real problems', like housing costs, medical costs, education costs, o…

[deleted]

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#43

Post by mejutoco »

jwie wrote: post #30
protontypes wrote: post #19

The rapid development of AI could lead to people generally being frightened away from digital products. In my own social environment, I see more and more people who used to be very enthusiastic about computers turning away to more analog entertainment and work. Blindly developing technology only as part of the "power play" without solving real problems is no longer justifiable. AI is starting to create significantly…

That's unfair fair to the oil companies. They at least produce power and a wide variety of very useful materials for industrial applications. The AI tools generate spam. Oil has a trade off that's at least intellectually defensible. Spam does not.

> Spam does not

AI does, though.

Finding new optimization techniques, understanding genetics, developing new science can all be intellectually defensible.

Of course it is not the only factor: the asymmetry in computing and data access by big corporations vs the individual, the generative models generating spam, as you well said. are all factors. But just like with the oil industry, there is also some good consequences. Which ones will dominate left as an exercise for the reader :)

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#44

Post by [deleted] »

miohtama wrote: post #16

AI is unrelated to post truth. We have been living the era of the fake news since 2016, when Russian trolls started to peddle with elections and President Trump created his legendary alternative facts. AI may exaggerate these issues, but not much. Anything AI can do can be done by human liars as well. If humans are not mentally ready then shit has already hit the fan and blaming/pointing the AI and its research or re…

[deleted]

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#45

Post by youngNed »

digitalsushi wrote: post #4

We may not be ready but we may as well get ready. I would strongly prefer to work with skeptical people again. Skeptics can be convinced, they just need evidence. Although I am genuinely intrigued by AI running out of things to ingest, and moving onto AI generated content. Is the snake starting to eat its tail?

> Skeptics can be convinced, they just need evidence

The past couple of years has convinced me this is 100% untrue.

People are very capable of ignoring evidence, in favour of something that:

a) reinforces previously held beliefs

b) allows them to remain in a social group

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#46

Post by FrustratedMonky »

thfuran wrote: post #38
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the rise of skepticism will actually lead to people decreasing their use of the internet. Once the internet is full of crap (like 1000x what it currently is) and everyone realizes nothing is real, or can be trusted. Will people turn away, and start reading books and talking to neighbors again. Could the new renaissance be talking to other humans again, because face-to-face personal contact would be only f…

Why wouldn't the books be AI-generated too?

You are right. That could happen too. I guess I was assuming there would still be editors and staff, some infrastructure that checks the contents of a book before printing. But guess that could go out the window too.

Of course that could be what happens. An entire new industry of "Certifications", companies that "Verify" media.

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#47

Post by HWR_14 »

dale_glass wrote: post #7

I don't think we're mentally ready for social media, even. What something like Twitter can inflict on a person when it goes wrong is absolutely unprecedented, and we still haven't adapted to it. Think that for instance going to the cinema, watching a movie, walking out and venting to a friend "Boy, this one sucked. $ACTOR_NAME did a really bad job with this one" is a perfectly normal thing to do. But move that to Twi…

While I am sympathetic to people who suddenly go viral, I have no real issues with actors who opted into the limelight seeing a stream of negative reactions to their work. They choose that and actively sought fame. And even leaving that aside, they put their work out there to billions of people. Those people should be expected to provide feedback.

A Starbucks barista didn't opt into that world. And they did not get paid a very large sum of money, in part to compensate them for (and let them pay other people to handle) the torrent of negativity.

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#49

Post by nathias »

Were we are ready for a "truth world" where ideology was considered an everyday necessity and people willingly paid for it in the forms of newspapers and tv? I welcome this kind of pos-truth, at best it will make people better at evaluating information on its own merit, at worse it will make them better at evaluating its origin.

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#50

Post by inanutshellus »

figassis wrote: post #40
dale_glass wrote: post #7

I don't think we're mentally ready for social media, even. What something like Twitter can inflict on a person when it goes wrong is absolutely unprecedented, and we still haven't adapted to it. Think that for instance going to the cinema, watching a movie, walking out and venting to a friend "Boy, this one sucked. $ACTOR_NAME did a really bad job with this one" is a perfectly normal thing to do. But move that to Twi…

I never understood why this makes social media hard. If you leave the theater and then go around town shouting that movie X sucked and actor Y was really bad, you might also get some responses and maybe show up on the news a a crazy person, prejudiced, or some other adjectives. So you don't, you tell your friends, some of which might call you an idiot for not getting it, and other might agree. If you tweet it out, yo…

GP says "the consequences of speaking normally are radically different now" and your retort is "I don't get why this is hard, just always perfectly self-censor."

Of course one'd have to do so in a way that one'd never offend anyone, ever, across the entire planet. Seems like an unrealistic response.

Post reply on HN