|
|
|
|
|
by abxyz
433 days ago
|
|
Setting aside the uncanny valley, my understanding is that people like seeing people not because they look like people but because it conveys effort and investment on the part of another human being. We want to feel like we're worth someone else's time, in every context. We don't like to interact with people just because that's the only way we can interact but because humans are human. AI avatars are the exact opposite: a statement of disinterest. If you don't care enough about my business to be on a sales call with me, why would I bother speaking to an AI avatar you send in your place? What's a thank you message without a human being actually taking the time to record it? AI avatars seem a lot like crypto: they're a neat technology solving the wrong problem. The "inefficiency" of humans interacting with humans is the fundamental component of communication. I guess it's a lot like LLMs: instead of producing less content that is more valuable / thoughtful per unit, we're producing a lot more content that is much less valuable / thoughtful per unit. AI avatars will create more vacuous communication, not enable our communication to be more thoughtful. Maybe human behavior will change because of this, maybe the next generation that grows up interacting with AI avatars won't have this same feeling that speaking to an actual human means something. |
|
As a technologist I think "omg this is so cool" and it has been genuinely surprising to see how they actively rebuff it.