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

341–350 of 548 posts

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

#341

Post by whatscooking »

caeril wrote: post #243
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.

My thoughts exactly lol

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

#342

Post by cal85 »

BizarreByte wrote: post #335
cal85 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analogy is not even wrong. Yes, if someone was suffering starvation I'd give them whatever food was available, but that is not a situation in which we find ourselves ever – it does not occur, nor does the analogous situation occur.

I absolutely does occur and we are an increasingly lonely society to the point it is a serious health concern. There are people with no meaningful social contact and for one reason or another the inability to get it.

What I said does not occur is finding oneself in a situation where someone is about to die and the only available food that can save their life is junk food.

In the analogous situation, someone is just about to die of loneliness and the only available loneliness-solver is chatbots – also something that does not occur.

Yes, in both of these highly improbable situations, saving the life comes above long term health considerations. But that is not a good point.

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

#344

Post by w_for_wumbo »

I'd argue we've been living already in a post-truth world. It's bizarre to think that you can know the truth on the internet. Because by the very mechanism of language and concepts, you're always abstracted away from truth. Not to mention layers of bias, management, interpretation and re-interpretation.

Truth is experience, everything else is a belief. There was an idea that we were unified before the internet, but what that meant was that most people were receiving the same propaganda. The information channels were fractured by the internet, meaning that control across it was impossible.

I'm not saying this comment is even truth, it's another opinion biased by my own world-view, beliefs etc. But trying to find truth on the internet is like trying to find a tasty book.

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

#345

Post by goatlover »

agloe_dreams wrote: post #339
legendofbrando wrote: post #326

Counter point: sure they are. Humans are highly adaptable and like other changes to information availability in the past they will adapt. This is what societal norms and cultural memes are for. “Don’t believe everything you hear” “Don’t believe what you see on TV” “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” These are all ways that the human species uses memes and cultural norms to teach ourselves how not to f…

This is a hilariously naive take. We, as humans, are well beyond being mentally ready for the internet and social media alone. Most of the key communication of the 20th Century was based on a tradition of duty and service in reporting and, generally, leadership. The Natzis of the 40s died not because the idea was 'wrong' (which it was) but because bad leadership and greed caused extinction. Before Poland, Europe was…

How is that any different form the past several thousand years of civilization? Hitler wasn't the first or only genocidal dictator. He wasn't alone in the 20th century either. Colonization and the slave trade were worse, albeit spread over several centuries. But empires waging war, conquering, enslaving, eradicating other groups and manipulating citizens has been going on for a long, long time.

Plato wrote to counter the sophists and skeptics of his day. The gospels have Pilate asking Jesus a philosophical question, "What is truth?" This is hardly new, just the technology is better.

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

#346

Post by systems_glitch »

legendofbrando wrote: post #326

Counter point: sure they are. Humans are highly adaptable and like other changes to information availability in the past they will adapt. This is what societal norms and cultural memes are for. “Don’t believe everything you hear” “Don’t believe what you see on TV” “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” These are all ways that the human species uses memes and cultural norms to teach ourselves how not to f…

It is estimated that between 50% and 70% of folks have no inner monologue.

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

#348

Post by ketzo »

vdqtp3 wrote: post #322
roenxi wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any evidence we are ready for mass media? The internet era suggests that there has always been a flood of lies and half-truths and there is an uncomfortable dawning realisation that the voters in most democracies would actually rather adopt peaceful policies if the media aren't ginning up a fight. What Twitter does to someone is unfortunate. What radio and broadcasting resulted in for Europe through the 1940s was arg…

> radio and broadcasting resulted in for Europe through the 1940s Are you arguing that radio and broadcasting are the cause of WW2?

They're definitely indirect causes of the rise of Hitler, sure.

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

#349

Post by Jeff_Brown »

throwuwu wrote: post #328
WorldMaker wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No. Automate the shit out of this. Call centre jobs should not exist. If you have humanity’s best interests in mind then you should be all in on automation instead of trying to institutionalize miserable and meaningless jobs.

+1. People have been afraid of automation destroying jobs for centuries but in the long run the unemployment rate doesn't seem to go much of anywhere.

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

#350

Post by uoaei »

aero-deck wrote: post #294
uoaei wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's a feature of the human mind that truth is considered objective independent of the lens used to acquire it. "Post-truth" sources in some arenas will be conflated with "real-truth" sources in others, leading to a blanket demotion of the perceived value and quality of truth. The whole argument from TFA is about human psychology, not about specific offerings of "marketplaces" where truth may be more or less mali…

dunno what "TFA" refers to here, but it seems like we're heading into a argument regarding epistemology, which is not a discussion that HN handles well. IMO "truth" is distraction here because what is at stake here are people's values, not their understanding of math and physics. When people worry about "post-truth", they're worried about liberal values no longer being the unquestioned default. It is absolutely a mar…

TFA = the f'ing article, something quite commonly understood on HN for time immemorial. Its snark is borne of the community's distaste of the kind of people who dive into comment sections without engaging with the very subject of and reason the comment thread exists in the first place. The fact you don't recognize this acronym calls into question your authority on what HN can or can't handle. But anyway, that's beside the point.

We are (well, I am, and TFA is) not talking about epistemology so much as the public's inability to engage with epistemological problems on systemic scales. Instead the limits of human psychology control how we as a society respond to these issues. Your argument is a distraction that remains uncontextualized within the conversation it finds itself in.

People are not dumb animals but you won't be able to engage anyone toward a solution on the basis of an argument about how they just need to understand more about epistemology. That's the kind of thing that people can only internalize via empirical means.

At this point it feels like you're being deliberately obtuse. I've been quite clear about the primacy of human psychological limits as the main aspect of the argument and you simply refuse to engage with this point. You haven't been very good about adding to the conversation, only diverting it.

Post reply on HN