[parsecs]

Why do things like this generate so many responses along the lines of "this is depressing," "technology is terrifying," "humanity is doomed" and etc? We've always loved entertainment ever since the dawn of our species. "Generated people" just seem like another form of entertainment medium, enabled by advancements in technology, to me.

Sure, I see the points about how we're more and more isolated and anti social and stuff.. but is that really a problem? Our evolutionary programming has the primary objective of genetic propagation, but it's ultimately up to us to decide our purpose in life. Someone said that real "AI-takeover" scenarios would involve such enthralling fantasies and entertainment that humans cannot even begin to imagine, and humans won't even put up a fight against AIs. As for me, I'm not alarmed; I absolutely look forward for that scenario to happen.

[oldsecondhand]

> Why do things like this generate so many responses along the lines of "this is depressing," "technology is terrifying," "humanity is doomed" and etc?

Don't worry about those comments, they were made by bots.

[kf6nux]

I can foresee a future where this (in practice) eliminates choice/individuality because people will allow their responses to be dictated by an AI for "best results."

Then whoever controls the AI controls society.

Tag onto that how AI/ML often reinforces systemic problems, and one can foresee how it would further entrench the status quo.

[parsecs]

You make a really great point. This AI stuff is certainly powerful for whoever controls them, though I personally believe that's a problem with the operator or societal system rather than the AI itself.

[wruza]

Exactly. Human models are easy to manipulate in the same exact way (maybe even easier except “scandals” part). Pour enough money on them and they will relay anything you want in the format you demanded.

[yesenadam]

For some reason I'm strongly reminded of

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords - Kent Brockman, on The Simpsons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lcUHQYhPTE

[TedDoesntTalk]

“Generated people” are no different than animation videos and movies in this regard. Another art form. No?

[dividedbyzero]

It becomes another thing when people aren't able to tell they're looking at something entirely artificial and are led to believe the person they're seeing is an actual human being. That's already happening with good deepfakes and it can be used for highly effective manipulation.

[wruza]

Everyone aware knows that “influencing” is full of the unreal stuff, including personalities. Those who do not realize it are manipulated either way. Only social education can fix that.

[parsecs]

Yes, I think so.

[DoctorNick]

Surely, you can't be this credulous

[SpicyLemonZest]

There are other serious concerns I do have about AI, but on this topic I think it's a reasonable argument.

What you have to remember is that the average person sits in front of a TV for 3-4 hours a day, watching characters who aren't real act out stories that never happened. Some people enjoy the shows where real people stand in front of a camera, while others (guilty!) prefer the ones where cartoonists draw fake people. In both genres, we've long since reached the saturation point where you could watch every second of your free time, but most people don't do that because they don't want to. The same dynamics generalize to Instagram, especially with filters allowing "real people" to look perfect in a way no actual person can - I don't know of reliable statistics on exactly how much people use Instagram, but I'm pretty confident it's not bounded by the number of pictures they could find if they wanted.

Does adding in an intermediate category of "cartoon but looks like a real person" fundamentally change these dynamics? I'm not 100% sure, but I lean towards no.

[parsecs]

Maybe I am this credulous