[pmarreck]

You seem like you not only have a chip on your shoulder about technological assistance in human lives (quite Luddite of you, even if we've all seen The Social Dilemma) but that you would prefer to believe a conspiracy theory without evidence (that "the AI is downvoting your AI-negative posts") than that you might simply be making badly-argued, negative-toned comments.

Tell you what- Here's a business idea you might appreciate: A series of islands where literally everything exists as it did in 1984, or 1992, or 2000, and you pay to basically "go back in time". All devices are confiscated on arrival but you are re-provided with the devices that were available in that era, meticulously maintained. We could call it "time/era tourism".

Heck, why stop there? Let's have one that is set in 1945, just after WW2 ended, or perhaps 1850/the Victorian era prior to the introduction of cars or the Industrial Revolution. Bonus points if it includes time-appropriate racism, sexism or diseases.

[MarceColl]

I have no problem with technological assistance in human lives in most cases. I'm just pointing out the incredibly anti-social behaviour of wanting to outsource socializing.

What conspiracy theory? I didn't say anything about AI doing shit, what I said is that somehow my 48 points comment that was at the top of the comment section, within the span of 5 seconds ended up at the bottom of the comment section while having more upvotes. I don't even care about that. But it's incredibly weird and without bringing AI into question (because it was not downvoted), it's clearly just that HN wants to slow down anti-AI sentiment (since it benefits them economically?).

Why don't you get your own island and let the AI communicate with the rest of humanity for you? Heck, why stop there. Maybe it could even outsource talking to your parents! No more of that time wasting! I could be hustling!

[pmarreck]

> pointing out the incredibly anti-social behaviour of wanting to outsource socializing

Excellently and succinctly stated.

I guess I was considering it an adjunct to socializing, or a filter on who to socialize with. Not a substitute. Have you ever spent a few minutes talking to someone only to realize that you had nothing in common? Have you ever met someone you had things in common with but it was at the very end of an event when there was no more time (or when it would be too awkward or too soon) to exchange contact info with? Well, this tech might have captured those.

Another example- There are people in the world who literally cannot stand having their beliefs get poked and prodded, and who in fact react violently if this poking and prodding (which is really just "curious probing") includes evidence against something they believe. I had a woman actually scream at me at a cocktail party once when I challenged her blank-slate hypothesis by citing Hassett/Siebert/Wallen (2008) (notably, the experimental conclusions from this study have since been challenged numerous times, which wasn't the case when that occurred years ago- I'm not here to defend it, only to point out an example). It would have been wonderful if I could have avoided that embarrassment by filtering out people who cannot tolerate a difference of evidence-backed opinion and gone straight to the people who love to debate stuff. Picture an AI whispering into my tiny earpiece, "this person, whose name is April, will likely not react well to the heretical poking and prodding you usually enjoy doing at these things."

> No more of that time wasting! I could be hustling!

LOL. Fair enough. As a friend recently pointed out to me, "if you really want efficiency in government, you'll end up with an autocratic dictatorship." Perhaps "optimizing the hell out of certain things" ruins them, or at least passes some point where the on-balance total cost is too high.

I'd love to "run the experiment" in real life!

[542354234235]

Considering how current tech has facilitated the automation of echo chambers, I doubt extending the tech into more social spaces will somehow reverse that. Of course, everyone believes they only hold evidence based, rational beliefs, so the net result 99% of the time would end up filtering out people who disagree.