Live data from Hacker News

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

wired.com

491–500 of 548 posts

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

#491
post #243
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.

Right, because the kind of connections we want and need in life is those that you would get from a pickup artist, not from a loyal friend and an affectionate spouse. /s

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

#492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CPU savings for the simulation they aren't "real" like the rest of us.

so by your logic, it's the "real" entities which will inevitably experience pain, suffering, and death; meanwhile I will reincarnate eternally as part of the program's grand design, simply because my thoughts are abstract instead of an auditory hallucination? ever consider maybe your "internal dialogue" is actually the instructions the programmers have to keep ramming in your face so you actually complete your quests…

Sweet Jesus, how sensitive are the NPCs today...

edit: they are downvoting ! they are getting sentient !

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

#493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do we need to keep changing who we are? > Why can't we just be who we are and people learn to be more accepting of how others are? Which is more reasonable and realistic: the 20% Weirdos learn how to behave to fit in with the 80% Normies, or the 80% Normies learn how to handle ("accept") the 20% Weirdos? In most systems, the minority adapts to the majority; this is especially true when the majority is fairly un…

How does that seem to be going with for example transgenderism or various sexualities? It just seems like a double standard and that there are a lot of problems with this line of thought to me. I have trouble understanding it.

Keep in mind I did say the self help industry - this isn’t a clinically mandated thing, it’s something people seek out themselves. There is an innate desire to improve.

Think about something really benign that almost everyone can agree on, like Toastmasters. Perhaps in a few years w/ a VR headset you can improve public speaking in front of a virtual crowd if you’re so shy that doing it in front of a large group of strangers is just too terrifying.

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

#494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I write “I’ll be back” you don’t hear it now in a thick German accent? Now you have made me curious. Where would the thick German accent be, when pronouncing those words? I can imagine other sentences (anything with "th", for example) where you would hear a German accent. But with "I'll be back"?

It's a Terminator quote: https://youtu.be/tYc2jQaM8gM?t=34 Maybe "in Arnold Schwarzenegger's voice" would've been more accurate, since I can't detect anything particularly German in the way it's said either.

I was aware of the origin of the quote, but I was really wondering how one would pronounce it with a thick, German accent.

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

#495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no right questions, only right answers. A question, by definition, isn't right or wrong. That's why it's a question, not an answer. The very first step to being an intelligent person is not being afraid to ask questions. The second step is trying to understand it even if you might reach the wrong result. Only if you passed those first two steps you even have the hope of answering the question correctly. And…

A child can’t prove 1+1 = 2 because a child doesn’t know enough mathematics to prove it. Doesn’t even understand the basics of mathematical logic or set theory. You know so little about what it means to prove 1+1=2 that you think proving this is easy. Your grasp on the limits of your mathematical knowledge is greatly lacking. There are no right questions, only right answers. A point that does not pertain to what I sa…

You don't need set theory to prove that 1+1=2. You don't need mathematical logic. A child which answers that if he puts one thing and then another thing and then counts and gets two things have proved it just fine. Those later complications are just there when you try to put it in context of other things you know. Ancient Greeks did not do set theory or mathematical logic, yet their understanding of basic addition was completely fine.

You inability to understand what is irrelevant complication, and your deferral to authority and expertise even when you are perfectly capable of understanding, is your own problem.

Here are two quote you said:

> "(There are no right questions, only right answers.)

A point that does not pertain to what I said. I said nothing about “right” questions."

> "Asking the right questions requires some perspicacity."

You also say "The thoughts were completely wrong". There are also no wrong thoughts, only wrong conclusions. A person afraid to "think" wrongly as the narrative so strongly tries to program people, is infinitely dumber than a person who doesn't constrain his thinking. That's what they want to happen. Amazing there are NPCs like you who avoid "wrongthink".

There are people who know a lot and understand nothing. Knowledge is spewing up complications from set theory. Understanding is being able to tell, by the context, that this is completely irrelevant.

You appealed to authority to even tell me that the earth is flat. You didn't say that we can observe the curvature from measuring distances, from doing an experiment with ships masts disappearing into the horizon, or any other way even ancient people figured it out. It's true because "The knowledge that the Earth is spheroidal has been known for many hundreds of years. ".

People "knew" the sun rotates around earth for thousand of years. And the truth won despite it being against the "authority". And nothing will change that understanding, even if some string theory will discover the 11th dimension or whatever, because that will be irrelevant in the same sense that set theory is irrelevant to 1+1=2. For these same reasons you don't need and shouldn't appeal to authority.

Appeal to authority is only knowledge. Zero understanding.

I said nothing about "doing the research". A person who deferred to authority and knowledge to answer a question is always inferior to a person who tried to understand and failed. A person appealing to authority is just trying to mirror someone's intelligence. A parrot who repeats a correct sentence is still dumber than a human saying a wrong sentence.

A parrot who repeats "vaccines are good" because he heard that is always the greater fool than the anti vax who says vaccines are bad.

A parrot who says 1+1=2 because set theory shows less understanding than a kid with an abacus. The parrot is saying irrelevant things while the child isn't.

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

#497
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good comparison. An AI companion will never talk back or tell you that you're wrong. Kind of similar in my mind to how fast food restaurants won't serve you anything that's too "hard to swallow".

An AI companion most definitely could be configured to talk back or adopt any possible personality trait.

Making it always talk back would not be an issue, just like making it a complete sycophant would also be easy. Any form on nuance would be hard. E.g. if i'm complaining about my job it should talk back if i'm being unreasonable. But also take into current state of mind, etc. Maybe using thought chaining you could get something like this to work but from my experience, i doubt it would be very good.

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

#498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Divisions in the Napoleonic wars were far more lethal than a Roman legion. A division today is many times more lethal than a Napoleonics division. A similar advancement has occurred within the realm of dissemination of propaganda but at a much shorter timeframe. In my opinion humanity is not prepared to deal with the social and psychological effects of this era of cheap, targeted, mass communication. I hope I am wron…

There's no evidence I'm aware of that supports the notion that we are capable, as a species, of weathering the social and psychological effects of the modern communications era and a growing body of evidence that suggest we aren't. Given human psychology around in-group dynamics it seems likely we never will be on anything other than evolutionary time scales.

Indeed. We did not evolve to adequately deal with this new reality.

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

#499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A child can’t prove 1+1 = 2 because a child doesn’t know enough mathematics to prove it. Doesn’t even understand the basics of mathematical logic or set theory. You know so little about what it means to prove 1+1=2 that you think proving this is easy. Your grasp on the limits of your mathematical knowledge is greatly lacking. There are no right questions, only right answers. A point that does not pertain to what I sa…

[flagged]

The widely accepted axiomatic basis for the natural numbers is the first order Peano Axioms. Very few children are capable of understanding how to prove 1+1=2 in this axiomatic system. In this system an axiom says that each element has a successor. 1 is called the successor of 0. 2 is called the successor of 1. So on and so forth. Now we need to define a binary operation called +. Now show that the successor of 0 plus the successor of 0 is the successor of the successor of 0.

How many children are capable of this level of abstract thinking?

People without training in statistics don’t understand how to properly design trials. I’m a mathematician and I don’t understand this since it is not something I’ve studied. I need to rely on the expert knowledge of others to tell what is and is not a good study design.

The large group of people that distrust certain vaccines rather than all of them are ignoramuses.

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

#500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A child can’t prove 1+1 = 2 because a child doesn’t know enough mathematics to prove it. Doesn’t even understand the basics of mathematical logic or set theory. You know so little about what it means to prove 1+1=2 that you think proving this is easy. Your grasp on the limits of your mathematical knowledge is greatly lacking. There are no right questions, only right answers. A point that does not pertain to what I sa…

You don't need set theory to prove that 1+1=2. You don't need mathematical logic. A child which answers that if he puts one thing and then another thing and then counts and gets two things have proved it just fine. Those later complications are just there when you try to put it in context of other things you know. Ancient Greeks did not do set theory or mathematical logic, yet their understanding of basic addition wa…

Obviously I used “right questions” not in the sense of saying a question has truth value and some of them have true as their truth value. Clearly I used “right question” in the sense of “insightful question”. That you couldn’t understand this indicates poor reading comprehension on your part.

Everyone appeals to authority in the sense you use this phrase because no one has the time to to argue out everything from first principles. In a discussion about why flat earthers are wrong I’d make an argument that shows they are wrong. In a discussion about misinformation and how easily duped people are in general I wouldn’t make such an argument since it isn’t pertinent.

Post reply on HN