[nullc]

but AI is telling you what 'people' think-- not a person-- but a blended up mismash of people, like the move Dark City, then strapped into a torture chair to diminish wrongthought. But it's people. or peopleish. It was made by people at least. sorta.

Besides, after being filtered through perception and narration who is to say any story you hear from another person is real?

Shouldn't it be more a question of what it does for you? And if some amorphous nonphysical branding of Realness(tm) and Authenticity(tm) is what you value most, then ultimately someone is marketing to that. And paradoxically it means that the most "real" stuff won't tend to be real at all.

So I think ultimately the only thing real is going to be the stuff you experienced yourself or comes from acquaintances you know well enough to know when they're not being earnest. I hope won't be so bad, after all it was the condition of all humanity until not so many years ago.

[Syonyk]

There's a reason the phrase, "Designed by committee", is not a praise. It applies to AI, too.

I don't want a mash-up of generic human thought, as filtered through a machine. I want to hear what people think, as individuals.

[foxglacier]

But there's no reason it can't emulate that. What people themselves think is mostly just a mashup of the crap they hear from other people anyway. It's also usually filtered for wrongthink, at least until they get to trust you enough.

I had this realization of how fake most people are when I started to use AI to talk online with people from a real-life-group I belonged to. I got it to talk the way they did and they liked it more than the real me. I then realized they're probably all just applying their own meat-AI filter to their own words anyway and not actually exposing their real feelings. I also know people who carefully draft and craft all their text and email messages to convey the feelings they want to show, whether they're honest or not.