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

241–250 of 548 posts

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

#241

Post by imtringued »

cvoss wrote: post #169
b1n wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not ever be able to persuade a bot, but you can identify if it is capable of repudiating your points or not. You can ascertain if it is arguing in good faith and chose to end an argument if it isn’t. When you say “find an argument that works” isn’t this just saying that they’ve said something you find persuasive? What’s wrong with this? How is this different to any other argument in good faith?

Because we have to assume not everyone can ascertain what are bad faith or dishonest arguments, or even good faith but illogical arguments. People are fallable and can be persuaded by bad arguments. So the point is, given enough time, the person will make a mistake and fall for a bad argument.

As someone struggling to destroy some of my own beliefs, due to their potential to waste a lot of my time. I have failed to do so.

The perceptions of other disagreeing people ended up just being one more way to validate them because you end up seeing the same pattern of mistakes over and over again.

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

#242

Post by zulban »

softbt wrote: post #17

Really don’t like the idea that we will act as interfaces for the AI, I honestly believe it will only many the majority of people lazier and dumber. I’m also incredibly shocked that no one is talking about AI as a friend/companion, that has to not be good for you in the long run. Humans need real human connection, AI is too artificial for that (duh). Having AI friends will be equivalent to consuming fast food instead…

> I’m also incredibly shocked that no one is talking about AI as a friend/companion

No one..? Don't be shocked, it's just you. Consider trying out new sources of media / information.

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

#243

Post by caeril »

softbt wrote: post #17

Really don’t like the idea that we will act as interfaces for the AI, I honestly believe it will only many the majority of people lazier and dumber. I’m also incredibly shocked that no one is talking about AI as a friend/companion, that has to not be good for you in the long run. Humans need real human connection, AI is too artificial for that (duh). Having AI friends will be equivalent to consuming fast food instead…

> Humans need real human connection

Right. Ask any pickup artist, or any Aspie who has learned how to mask, how "real" or "deep" human connections are.

Hint: they aren't. The ridiculous concept of "connection" is superficial communication that has been enhanced by our own brains by seratonin and dopamine such that we are able to pretend it's meaningful.

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

#244

Post by baja_blast »

robotresearcher wrote: post #147
youngNed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

You describe dogmatism, not skepticism. Unfortunately, dogmatists often declare themselves as skeptics, but this is a rhetorical trick. Dogmatists doubt the competing beliefs, but not their own beliefs.

r/skeptic on reddit fits this perfectly. No one there is actually a skeptic just dogmatic and no evidence or counter points will sway them. If it was the time of Copernicus the sub would 100% side with the Church that the sun revolves around the earth and how Copernicus is "dangerous".

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

#245

Post by ekam »

Ekaros wrote: post #129
ssnistfajen wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stuffing 25 RTX4090 into every anthropomorphic sex bot is the real growth potential that hasn't been priced in yet /s

Hmm, I think shared capacity in cloud might be enough? What fraction of time would you use one anyway? And wouldn't it be better if one was silent the other time?

The comment is a reference to the 25x4090 comment in another thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36413296

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

#246

Post by DrThunder »

civilitty wrote: post #39
softbt wrote: post #17

Really don’t like the idea that we will act as interfaces for the AI, I honestly believe it will only many the majority of people lazier and dumber. I’m also incredibly shocked that no one is talking about AI as a friend/companion, that has to not be good for you in the long run. Humans need real human connection, AI is too artificial for that (duh). Having AI friends will be equivalent to consuming fast food instead…

I’m working on a startup that’s training LLMs to be authentic so they can simulate human affection and it’s actually working really well! The key is humanity’s ability to pattern match: we’re actually pretty terrible at it. Our brains are so keen on finding patterns that they often spot them where none exist. Remember the face on Mars? It was just a pile of rocks. The same principle applies here. As long as the AI so…

IMO what you're doing is similar to giving someone with a physical pain issue opioids. Yes it stops the pain but we really ought to be finding the pain source and correcting that, not throwing massive amounts of pharma drugs (AI in this case) at it.

We should be building a society that promotes more community gathering and more family values so people have a real person around and not some half assed impersonation of what a human is.

Edit: Dammit, didn't catch the satire....

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

#247

Post by pixl97 »

WorldMaker wrote: post #154
Jeff_Brown wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bank with a small credit union. They have a phone robot who asks what I need help with, and so far no matter what I've said, the response has always been to think for a few seconds and then say, "I'll connect you to a representative." It's wonderful.

The phone robot is collecting the various patterns for eventual automation. You are doing free labor for it every time by giving it any information at all and not just immediately yelling for an operator or human. Support solidarity for human kind by refusing to talk these data gathering machines. (I realize this sounds like satire as I write it, that I'm rather serious about this, and that it says a lot about the we…

Eh, in another year or two you'll call up and have no idea if you're talking to a human or not. Game over, we lost.

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

#249

Post by baja_blast »

wongarsu wrote: post #32
RobinUS2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are we going to provide that evidence? And make sure that evidence is actually true, instead of AI generated? Send them a link to a wiki page that has been mutated by an AI bot updating it? ;-)

How have we done this so far? The only two answers I can come up with are A) independently verifiable facts, for example you can apply the scientific method to the hypothesis that the earth is not flat (make predictions that should follow from that, and test those experimentally); or B) data provenance. If some crackhead says that the US government is conducting brainwashing experiments you might discard that, if the…

> reputable newspaper who write about it

But as for the case of the Fauci emails from FOIA requests no "reputable" newspaper reported on it. So people still to this day dismiss it since it did not come from a "reputable" source despite the fact you can confirm the provenance and authenticity of these documents by confirming with the agency that released the documents

Post reply on HN