91–100 of 548 posts
The rapid development of AI could lead to people generally being frightened away from digital products. In my own social environment, I see more and more people who used to be very enthusiastic about computers turning away to more analog entertainment and work. Blindly developing technology only as part of the "power play" without solving real problems is no longer justifiable. AI is starting to create significantly…
AI is unrelated to post truth. We have been living the era of the fake news since 2016, when Russian trolls started to peddle with elections and President Trump created his legendary alternative facts. AI may exaggerate these issues, but not much. Anything AI can do can be done by human liars as well. If humans are not mentally ready then shit has already hit the fan and blaming/pointing the AI and its research or re…
Just shutting off from the Internet is the likely result, IMO. I'm halfway there already. I think social networks (HN is better, but not great), dating apps, hell even stuff like automatic parking apps or online shopping, are just gradually sucking the joy out of what it is to be a human. For the most part, nowadays, I pretty much just use my phone to organise analogue fun. Once places like HN become obviously just a…
I am mentally ready for an AI-saturated post-truth world. Bring it on.
Whenever we have invented new mass media (books, radio, television, social media) it has taken a generation or two to manage the impacts, on a societal level. And in many cases, the intervening period was fraught with conflict and discord (religious schisms, rise of fascism, etc). The big problem is not whether you or I are ready. The problem is whether the "average joe" is ready for what's coming. No good in being r…
Change comes regardless of whether anyone is ready or not. But the average Joes usually muddle through well enough.
We may not be ready but we may as well get ready. I would strongly prefer to work with skeptical people again. Skeptics can be convinced, they just need evidence. Although I am genuinely intrigued by AI running out of things to ingest, and moving onto AI generated content. Is the snake starting to eat its tail?
I wonder if the rise of skepticism will actually lead to people decreasing their use of the internet. Once the internet is full of crap (like 1000x what it currently is) and everyone realizes nothing is real, or can be trusted. Will people turn away, and start reading books and talking to neighbors again. Could the new renaissance be talking to other humans again, because face-to-face personal contact would be only f…
Just shutting off from the Internet is the likely result, IMO. I'm halfway there already. I think social networks (HN is better, but not great), dating apps, hell even stuff like automatic parking apps or online shopping, are just gradually sucking the joy out of what it is to be a human. For the most part, nowadays, I pretty much just use my phone to organise analogue fun. Once places like HN become obviously just a…
I don't think you're following the global trend.
What matters to me is my community.
We may not be ready but we may as well get ready. I would strongly prefer to work with skeptical people again. Skeptics can be convinced, they just need evidence. Although I am genuinely intrigued by AI running out of things to ingest, and moving onto AI generated content. Is the snake starting to eat its tail?
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? ;-)
We may not be ready but we may as well get ready. I would strongly prefer to work with skeptical people again. Skeptics can be convinced, they just need evidence. Although I am genuinely intrigued by AI running out of things to ingest, and moving onto AI generated content. Is the snake starting to eat its tail?
> 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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The church didn't object to the printing press, AFAIK. Unless you can produce a papal bull forbidding it, I think you've undermined your own argument.
That's not really relevant to my point, which was that new means of spreading information are capable of spreading both true and false information, and that history has shown that the ability to spread false information does not prevent the positive impact of true information. So instead of a papal bull, how about a stack exchange with links explaining how (even if the church did not oppose the press itself) the chur…
> history has shown that the ability to spread false information does not prevent the positive impact of true information.
And that's enough? So we can forget about The protocols of Elders of Zion and the stab-in-the-back myth and the misery they imparted because something else overcame that? Or closer to home: we should simply ignore things like Cambridge Analytica and the meddling in the US elections, even though it moved, and still could be moving, the USA towards a fascist regime?
> people are smart
No, most aren't, and even what's normally considered smart people can believe in hoaxes and act to the detriment of society.
> even lies help listeners learn
You lost me there. Learning is not a goal per se. Learning from malicious information can lead to malicious outcomes. If you want to invoke a history lesson, that would be a good one.