It is a severe reach to say that AI can provide human connection. At best, it can provide the illusion, for some. And for those people, I'm not going to say that that's not valuable or legitimate for them. But it's pushing it one step too far to imply that that's a good idea for everyone.
God help us if we determine there is nothing special about human cognition. A lot of people are putting a lot of faith in what amounts to the soul. I’m not at all sure it exists.
Existence of a/the soul isn't the only reason machines cannot replace people in the context of something like this.
One reason is that the human experience is dependent upon the biological nature of man. The biological systems color the experience. The pumping of blood, the nervous system, the heart beating, and ultimately, one's awareness of the specific type of mortality inherent to biological organisms, are integral to the experience. If you accurately reproduce that experience then perhaps you've simply made a human rather than a machine. Of course that claim spurs many subsequent philosophical arguments. Ultimately though, a video game console emulator is not the literal console no matter how accurate it is.
A second reason is simply the subjective experience of a person. Regardless of how accurate the simulation is, ultimately, if the person is aware the other end isn't human, the experience is tainted (for better or worse depending on the individual's opinion - but tainted nonetheless). Knowledge of the truth will necessarily affect the experience. The alternative - being in the dark or outright deception - raises other questions of genuinity that taint the experience.
A conversation with a human, by another human, will never be the same as a conversation with a machine - by definition.
Both can be true. There can be nothing physically or metaphysically "special" about human cognition, and at the same time, we can also be very, very far away from creating even a holistic facsimile. We've got echoes of it in statistical, predictive models, though, and that's shoved the idea into the discourse far before its time.
I agree. My point is that if there’s no mystic soul, it’s probably a mistake to say AI can’t provide the same actual connection that humans do. Today’s AI can’t, for most people, but it’s a statement about maturity of the tech, not human special-ness.
I also maybe agree with “very very far away”, in the 20ish year range. Farther than some people think, closer than others do.
If and when we get to a place where AI reaches that holistic facsimile, I’m not sure what I’ll think of humans who reject the idea and insist that we are qualitatively different because (insert biological or spiritual rationale here). I suspect it will feel like seeing someone mistreat a call center employee because they happen to be in India, or sound like a disliked minority.
> probably a mistake to say AI can’t provide the same actual connection that humans do.
Almost as a matter of definition by the time AI can provide such a connection there won't be anything distinguishing it from an actual human. Which is to say, what you're implying there is an artificially manufactured but fully functional human.
It cannot because it is not human. It can emulate the experience but it will never be genuine. Generally, if a caller ever became aware that it wasn't truly a person on the other end it would lessen the interaction. Whether that is justified or not is debatable, but it is nonetheless the case and thus the end result is not the same.
Interesting point that I also alluded to elsewhere. The perspective of good/bad could vary highly depending on the individual. And really, it could vary highly based on what any one individual is looking for out of a particular conversation at that moment: unconditonal affirmation, critical obversations, etc.
I dont think communicating to text on a screen can ever be called 'a human connection', regardless of whether there is an actual human on the other side or not.