[gammafactor]

Amazing piece of logic here, "you came out of people -> you depend on people" and "you must like people" is implied.

I hate that I have to depend on people. I find them unreliable at best. Which is why a lot of us are working to improve the primitive societies we currently live in in order to REMOVE that dependency. I'd rather depend on algorithms (and in fact I do, more and more every single day that passes) than anything as primitive as people.

[vezzy-fnord]

Algorithms are much more primitive than people by definition. You seem to have intended to convey the opposite, a preference for relying on primitives over complicated persons.

[ams6110]

More primitive, in the sense of less complex, yes. But also more reliable. Algorithms do what they do, and never anything else.

[gammafactor]

I'm chinese and was using primitive in an evolutionary sense.

Wrong choice of word, I agree with you.

[omarchowdhury]

Liking and disliking are not the only choices. I'm saying to see the world the way it is.

Also, would you say your refuge in algorithms is your way of trying to control your reality? Algorithms are straight forward and predictable, unlike people. Thoughts?

[oldmanjay]

I have one thought, which is that no one really needs you saving them via insulting HN comments.

[omarchowdhury]

And that I am trying to save anyone is your own extrapolation.

[oldmanjay]

okay, fine. then what you are doing is something even less useful, and I should have no one really needs you lecturing them for no reason via insulting HN comments.

do you feel better now that your output has been properly characterized?

[omarchowdhury]

What exactly was insulting? His name is douche. Also, newsflash: you're lecturing me. Don't fight fire with fire.

[gammafactor]

Don't assume things about me (this is another tendency that "people" have :-)

From an early age, I found contemporary "people" uninteresting to extremely dull. I had to force myself to socialize with them in order not to become a premature social pariah. It's a lot easier these days.

I'm mostly talking about your average human by the way, not the sum total of humanity.

To give you an example, I enjoy Nietzsche's (another social pariah) writing enormously but I find Nietzsche-the-person mostly uninteresting and boring. This is the outlook I have on life. I'd rather spend my time reading all the treasures we have from the past and trying to understand them, than indulge in pointless socializing.

I don't see myself as weird or crazy. I think I'm simply way ahead of the curve here. Give it 30-40-60 years, human relationships will have degenerated to a degree that far surpasses mine.

When robots can fulfill your every "human" desire (food, sex, companionship) and you are free to do whatever you want with the rest of your time are you going to keep wasting this precious commodity in pursuit of other, "human" relationships or will you finally be able to fully devote yourself to whatever it is that you know, deep down, is your true calling in life?

This is of course assuming that your true calling in life is not "other people" or in other words, current social conditioning or consensus reality. This is when that conditioning will fully break down and society will have advanced a step on the evolutionary ladder.

[omarchowdhury]

If I was assuming I would be making statements, not questions. I was pointing out the mirror image between how algorithms behave and how people behave.

Though I find it ironic, because you yourself are assuming about other people with this:

are you going to keep wasting this precious commodity in pursuit of other, "human" relationships or will you finally be able to fully devote yourself to whatever it is that you know, deep down, is your true calling in life?

As if people are not able to have fulfilling human relationships AND devote themselves to a calling. As if everyone is wasting their time, because you think it's a waste of time. If it's a waste of time because people fail in their pursuits, well guess what, no pursuit is guaranteed.

This talk about robots is just the sign of the times: the mechanization of everything, even that which is not fundamentally mechanical.

[armitron]

You either are not paying attention to what he wrote or, alternatively, "fully devoted" doesn't mean the same to you as it does to him (and me).

BTW: Everything is fundamentally mechanical, you should check out Norbert Wiener.

[cousin_it]

> will you finally be able to fully devote yourself to whatever it is that you know, deep down, is your true calling in life?

Unfortunately, the mysterious voice that tells you to pursue a creative activity might grow silent when that activity is no longer connected with social status in your mind. Which is exactly what will happen if you grow distant from humans and your material needs are covered by machines.