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

521–530 of 548 posts

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

#521

Post by GoblinSlayer »

systems_glitch wrote: post #346
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.

Because textual thought is abysmally inefficient and inadequate.

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

#522

Post by GoblinSlayer »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #395
mkl wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of them was Albert Einstein: "The words of the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought." -- https://www.creativitypost.com/article/aping_einstein#:~:tex... Your comment seems like a non sequitur.

Wow, it’s a sourced quote too (rare for Einstein on the internet). How do you write a paper without thinking in words? I need to talk to someone who doesn’t think in words, I just can’t believe it otherwise.

Text generation is conversion of previously prepared idea to text. If you didn't have that idea beforehand, you would have nothing to say. Sure it's a nontrivial process, because ideas don't map to text well, but it's merely text conversion, not really thought. Also text must work around reader's ignorance and prejudice, which is completely irrelevant for idea itself.

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

#523

Post by HankB99 »

fendy3002 wrote: post #317
HankB99 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason an LLM could not be programmed to disagree? Perhaps the level of disagreeableness would be a tunable parameter and could be cranked up when in the mood for a fight or down when one one just wants to converse. Some randomness could keep it from getting too predictable.

Yes you can, but AFAIK AI doesn't have moral basis and at best the confrontation will be random. Sure you can program the AI to have some moral basis but people will choose to flock with those that have the same alignment with them and keeping the confrontation at minimum, thus the flaw still exists even if it doesn't bore you. In real life, we need to interact with several people at minimum normally, weekly. Those a…

Good point.

> In real life, we need to interact with several people at minimum normally, weekly.

I think that's one of the problems with social media (aside from AI.) It's too easy to restrict your contacts to only those you agree with.

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

#524

Post by machina_ex_deus »

synetic wrote: post #500
machina_ex_deus wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fir…

"Everyone knows" is not an argument that shows someone is wrong. It's an argument that shows you're just judging people because they stray away from the consensus. Ironically, after you were crying about mob mentality.

A person who thinks "flat earthers are stupid" because "everyone knows", and not because of the actual reasons this is true, is not smarter. The flat earther also knows everyone knows the earth is round. You didn't display any knowledge they don't have.

How can you tell the earth is round is a pretty insightful question. The difference between us is that I understand that people coming to recognize truth from falsehood, including making mistakes and falling in the way, is more important than reaching the correct result. Which is why I'm not afraid of disinformation, because I think people need to not be afraid to think and ask questions and take a path where they don't get the correct result right away.

Mine while, you wish for people to avoid thinking and defer to authority. It's extremely relevant, it's at the core of my argument, that's what this discussion is all about.

The system failed the flat earther not because it prevented the false information from reaching them. The system failed to properly educate them to recognize truth from falsehood, and instead taught them, like your attitude, to rely on authority. The only difference between you is that their trust in authority has stopped. And their reasoning is bad because they never used them.

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

#525

Post by GoblinSlayer »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #398
jackjeff wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. I had no idea that was a thing. I thought that’s just something they do in movies. But I don’t have a mind’s eye either (aphantasia). So I guess that’s on brand for me. That doesn’t mean I can’t “talk to myself” in a way or think about stuff. I just have no auditory sensation whatsoever. It’s just abstract/immaterial reasoning. I’d wager if I did an FMRI the audio part would not light up but the speech part woul…

You don’t have visual dreams? If I say “pink elephant,” you don’t one? Or better yet, if i say “Dumbo,” you don’t see the ears? You don’t hear songs in your head? If I write “I’ll be back” you don’t hear it now in a thick German accent? Inconceivable! (As they say)

Maybe imagination is poorly understood. I'm confident in my imagination when it comes to technology, but I fail the aphantasia test, because it tests free form artistry and I admittedly lack that one. Maybe it's division between STEM brain and arts brain.

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

#526

Post by mrtranscendence »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #525
dr_dshiv wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t have visual dreams? If I say “pink elephant,” you don’t one? Or better yet, if i say “Dumbo,” you don’t see the ears? You don’t hear songs in your head? If I write “I’ll be back” you don’t hear it now in a thick German accent? Inconceivable! (As they say)

Maybe imagination is poorly understood. I'm confident in my imagination when it comes to technology, but I fail the aphantasia test, because it tests free form artistry and I admittedly lack that one. Maybe it's division between STEM brain and arts brain.

I've gone back and forth on aphantasia. It's true that I generally don't see images in my mind; even when thinking about things that are visual I'll tend to mentally describe them in English. But if I really try I can definitely see things in my mind, after a fashion, although it's very ... blurry, for lack of a better word.

I'm also terrible with faces. I can see someone I've known for years with a different haircut and I'll completely fail to recognize them. If everyone suddenly went bald I'd be helpless to recognize anybody.

Edit: Like, I'm right now trying to conjure up the face of my girlfriend of 23 years (who is on a business trip right now). I just can't do it. It's kind of trippy.

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

#527

Post by mrtranscendence »

Filligree wrote: post #425
dr_dshiv wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t have visual dreams? If I say “pink elephant,” you don’t one? Or better yet, if i say “Dumbo,” you don’t see the ears? You don’t hear songs in your head? If I write “I’ll be back” you don’t hear it now in a thick German accent? Inconceivable! (As they say)

Not OP, but I'm in the same position, so let me answer. - I do get visual dreams. That's the only time I have a visual imagination; that, or if I'm on the verge of sleeping. - If you say "pink elephant", I've got the concepts of elephant, pink and so on in my head. I can 'see' the geometry in a way, but it's totally abstract. Think of it like a pink elephant in a game where the renderer is off, and you won't go far w…

> By default, while I read something there's no auditory element at all.

I wouldn't characterize how I read -- which as far as I know is normal, but who can tell! -- as narrating to myself. Rather, it involves the sensation of somehow pronouncing words without necessarily hearing them. I can do this much faster than I could narrate the text explicitly.

I can also read without either narrating or pronouncing, but I find that it cuts down comprehension noticeably.

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

#528

Post by mrtranscendence »

strken wrote: post #393
mrtranscendence wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems insane to me. I'm always chattering away up there, I can't imagine it otherwise.

I have an inner monologue, but it's just one of many different ways to think and I don't always choose to use it. What happens when you consider a spatial problem like an IQ test? Do you have to talk your way through it? If you see an art piece, do you only appreciate it through the monologue, or does it feel beautiful in a non-verbal way too?

I do tend to talk through spatial problems, yes, though I'm not so aphantasiac that I can't visualize, say, the image that would match a simple pattern of lines demonstrated in prior images. I can also situate things with relative position in my head without having to visualize them (if that makes sense).

> If you see an art piece, do you only appreciate it through the monologue, or does it feel beautiful in a non-verbal way too?

I appreciate it both ways, yeah. But the visual in that case would mostly be just "this is pretty" or "that's disturbing" etc. Any kind of genuine art critique (such as I am even capable of doing) would be talked through mentally.

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

#529

Post by mrtranscendence »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #387
mrtranscendence wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems insane to me. I'm always chattering away up there, I can't imagine it otherwise.

I also talk a lot to myself so my inner dialogue becomes an external dialogue when I'm alone doing mindless stuff like cleaning or putting groceries away - I find it just keeps my mind active and in the present without tuning out. One of the funniest things was when I was working at a bike shop. The owner was a really cool guy and would visit the store from time to time. I was stocking some bike rack stuff on one sid…

I do the same thing, though weirdly enough less than I used to. Sometimes it really helps me work through a problem -- maybe it slows me down to a better pace? Who knows.

Talking to pets also works. They've never been able to offer a very useful response, alas.

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

#530

Post by carlosjobim »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #490
carlosjobim wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This change came already with the invention of radio. We have a century of radio and TV propaganda of the absolutely vilest kind behind us already. At least now there is an exchange with the instant communications, not only one-way.

You assume this bidirectional communication is a benefit. I'm not so convinced. This permits the formation of echo chambers and allows people to nominate literally anyone, regardless of their position or credentials, as an authority on literally any topic (see also: anti-vax moms). This represents an assault on society's ability to function at the most basic level, as it is increasingly difficult for individuals to a…

I suggest you botanize a little in early and mid 20th century TV and radio broadcasts from around the world. You will find propaganda where the presenters are literally screaming like lunatics at the listener: Telling children to turn in their parents to the secret police, calling for war - and worse. That is what the majority of the population of the world had to listen to and watch. Mass media propaganda on the airwaves fueled the 20th century wars and worst crimes against humanity in history - with millions hypnotized under its spell.

You can not compare that to online conversations that you find inconvenient. And if you didn't believe in bidirectional communication you wouldn't participate here, so I think you do believe in it.

Post reply on HN