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

We may not like what we become if A.I. solves loneliness

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: We may not like what we become if A.I. solves loneliness

#841

Post by scotty79 »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #189
kylecazar wrote: post #159

AI is incapable of solving loneliness. It's a biological signal we have (thanks to evolution) to seek social connections with other humans , for things like reproduction and survival. Mentally healthy people will never be less lonely as long as they know they are talking to a model. All it can offer is a distraction and an illusion, because it has no humanity. Note: I don't even think dogs solve loneliness. They can…

On your last point, I've noticed an uptick in folks treating their dogs in ways most people might treat their children. So while I think on paper what you say makes sense, at some point, I think people are in fact personifying their pets to a degree that they recognize them as adjacent to human beings.

Somebody is gonna make billions with AI vests for dogs that senses the dog's mood through Fitbit like sensors and produces human voice in the way that's consistent with behavior and history and desirable for the owner that wants to personify their pet further. Basically a cyberdog.

Re: We may not like what we become if A.I. solves loneliness

#842

Post by scotty79 »

achierius wrote: post #619
scotty79 wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you've fallen into the far right rabbit hole, and this is what "catch you when you say something they don't like" means It might be true for this particular person, but people being a live minefield waiting to blow up in your face is more general experience. Regardless of your views, no matter how benign and out of mainstream controversy you perceived them to be, they will be taken as a reason to view you negativel…

Yet that risk and that complexity is itself what makes something real. Realness is persistence, the fact of there being a system behind the surface -- the more that that's true, the more real something is. Once you lose that, reality drains away -- and all its benefits with it. Think of how much less satisfaction people get from beating a game with cheats than from doing it 'the real way'; or even how much more satis…

I think desire for "real" is just a form of masochism. This real that people talk about is just suffering in sufficient amount to silence their restless brains. Most people aren't like that. Most prefer to use pleasure instead of pain to calm their brains. They don't care if a thing is "real" as long as it does its job. For the 'real' afficiandos pleasure doesn't work. That's why they disparage things that bring joy and peace to other people. Because those things simply don't work for them. The only thing that works is appropriate amount of suffering to make their brain accept the stuff they are doing, that's not any more real or interesting for the average person.

Have you noticed how a huge variety of things can be "real"? And the only unifying factor is the suffering? I think it's because it's all about the suffering, not the narrations and the details.

Re: We may not like what we become if A.I. solves loneliness

#843

Post by scotty79 »

miltonlost wrote: post #625
scotty79 wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you've fallen into the far right rabbit hole, and this is what "catch you when you say something they don't like" means It might be true for this particular person, but people being a live minefield waiting to blow up in your face is more general experience. Regardless of your views, no matter how benign and out of mainstream controversy you perceived them to be, they will be taken as a reason to view you negativel…

> Regardless of your views, no matter how benign and out of mainstream controversy you perceived them to be, No, not regardless of the views. The views themselves matter.

Yes, views do matter, but if you are not an utterly boring person you have variety of them and your similarly interesting friends also have a variety. If you fully exposed the entire variety of your respective views to each other you wouldn't be friends with most people you know.

Re: We may not like what we become if A.I. solves loneliness

#844

Post by matheusmoreira »

HPsquared wrote: post #811
matheusmoreira wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not comparing children with immigrants. I'm pointing out the demographic fact that Japan has a low birth rate, far below replenishment. This implies the number of economically active individuals will only ever decrease over time. Without economically active people, collapse is inevitable. Therefore, they must either promote new families or accept immigration. Attempts to raise birth rates don't seem to be bearing…

Shrinking population only leads to collapse if the economy is built like a Ponzi scheme. This is most Western economies, but it doesn't have to be this way.

Shrinking population leads to zero population. Surely this truth is self-evident.

There is no economy without people. There is no nation without natalism.

> it doesn't have to be this way

Absolutely. If the nation can maintain a proper replacement birth rate, the population will be stable. Decline and uncontrolled exponential growth are both undesirable.

Re: We may not like what we become if A.I. solves loneliness

#845

Post by saltwatercowboy »

zwnow wrote: post #834
saltwatercowboy wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your attitude is sadly widespread in tech. I don't know if it's because of rejection, or fear, or something else, but we really are nothing more than the social world we live in. Substituting that for a theoretically perfect AI 'companion' is hollow and destructive. It's like watching the movie 'Her' and thinking - wow, that looks great.

I dont use AI for social interaction, I'd feel like a loser if I did that. But I also have a lot of trust issues with regular humans as I got disappointed over and over again. Didn't try to connect with people for over 10 years now.

Well, you seem nice enough to me.

Re: We may not like what we become if A.I. solves loneliness

#846

Post by heresie-dabord »

egypturnash wrote: post #295

It's not going to solve loneliness. It's just going to provide a weak substitute for actual socialization. Talking with actual humans but only over the internet is not enough, I have been there and it was a terrible trap, it provided just enough to make it possible for me to avoid physical socialization, while not giving me enough to actually thrive; we need to get out and be in the same place with other people, doin…

> It's just going to provide a weak substitute for actual socialization.

The author of the article calls it "artifical empathy". But it could have a profound socio-economic effect.

> Our argument was that, in certain ways, the latest crop of A.I.s might make for better company than many real people do

It is a fascinating and uncomfortable proposition. Some users of the early chatbot ELIZA [1] were convinced that it had real understanding. (Weizenbaum: "I had not realized ... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people.")

Can a society find itself unable to socialise itself, can an entire generational cohort of people become socially dysfunctional to the point where it is more "satisfying" to interact with "artificial empathy"? Given enough disinformation, failing education standards, and outright propaganda... the answer seems to be yes.

[1] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

Re: We may not like what we become if A.I. solves loneliness

#847

Post by kevindamm »

watwut wrote: post #518
zhivota wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're missing is that the activities you're doing were not the activities people were largely doing 10-20 years ago to be social. Going to bars was probably at least 100x more popular than hiking, so even if you see a 10x growth in hiking, if going to bars goes down even 10%, it dwarfs hiking's contribution to overall social activity of the population.

I feel like some of the cultural outrages and doomerism are getting ridiculous. People do not drink as much alcohol as they used to, we are doomed! People actually avoid situation that make them drink and drive, we are doomed! Teenagers have less sex then before, take less drugs, commit less crime, we are doomed! Cant wait for "kids play less videogames, we are doomed!" round.

Considering the video game industry contributes $66 billion to US GDP (and $184 billion globally) [1] some people would probably see it as an issue.

[1] https://www.trade.gov/media-entertainment-video-games-sector

Re: We may not like what we become if A.I. solves loneliness

#848

Post by skrebbel »

motbus3 wrote: post #837

I have a friend who is treating depression for feeling lonely all the time. We used to call him every week to have a coffee, a beer, a pizza or whatever and he never did because he had no time and he was always busy or tired (as we also were). He kept doom scrolling until the day was over

That's kind of how depression works right? The things that could fix it (socializing, exercise, etc) are also the things that are hardest to do.

I'm not sure that I read your tone right, but being disappointed in a depressed friend for not hanging out is like being disappointed in a friend with a broken leg for not joining a soccer match.

Re: We may not like what we become if A.I. solves loneliness

#849

Post by idiotsecant »

exoverito wrote: post #759
idiotsecant wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly does it mean to be 'invaded by Islam' in your head? That's a fascinating sentence.

Living up to your username I see. If you still don't know what it means, or are pretending you don't, that's a major red flag. If you're asking honestly, try reading Soumission by Houellebecq.

If it's so obvious and simple you should be able to sum it up instead of telling me to read a crackpot book about it. The fact that you can't is telling.

Re: We may not like what we become if A.I. solves loneliness

#850

Post by jhbadger »

bilbo0s wrote: post #458
andrepd wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parks and libraries are always full where I live, a metro area of 1.5mil.

Phew! I thought I was weird or something? Parks, public pools, libraries and museums are the main things we do as a family. We also live in a metro of about 1.5 M. Maybe other metro areas charge for parks, libraries and museums? Especially museums now I think about it? Museums in small metro areas can be free. Likely because there's nothing in them. (Still fun, just not as many exhibits as museums in large metro area…

> I mean, just imagine trying to run something like the Museum of Science and Industry, Museum of Natural History, or the Field Museum for free.

While it is possible they'll get gutted and/or forced to charge admission in the current craze to cut government funding, by far the best museums in the country -- the Smithsonian ones in DC -- are absolutely free to visit.

Post reply on HN