[zkmon]

Most of what AI does is already in wrong direction. Not just human-to-human interaction, it took away thinking, creative work, sensory perception (glasses) and responses. People call it as helping humans, but I call it as sucking away the "human-ness" from humans.

After the damage is done, the mega corps would simply shrug and will say "Well, we were just responding to our business competition" The business knows no human-ness, because it is not a human. Businesses and machines are creatures that see humans as their fodder. And humans created these, assuming it is progress, to have businesses and machines. We call it progress because it required our mind power and it helped us to dominate other species. Dolphins are laughing at us.

[amarant]

I don't understand this line of reasoning. How are you hindered from doing any of those things? What part of "AI can now do X" makes it so you can't also do X?

[hackrmn]

Fewer people aren't staring into their phones or talking to them -- makes your social antennas pick up automatically on not wanting to disturb them (lest you draw their ire for not having the social antennas long enough to pick up on the fact they're "busy and don't want to engage with you" like a gymrat with AirPods to signal they're there to pump in peace and quiet listening to their favourite playlist, not talk to strangers). Happened to me already many times just with people scrolling their phone instead of talking and not wanting to talk in particular either, not to me at least. And no -- I am not talking about bothering strangers in the gym etc, I am talking about sitting at the lunch table where half of the people look into their phones -- they aren't actually interested in talking, it turns out.

Our devices have now increased the distance _between_ us -- it's not about _you_ being able to "do X" -- talking to others is not _you_ doing it, it's you _and the other person_ doing it _together_. You can't be doing anything together consentually when the other person is in the habit of talking with their AI, or doomscrolling for that matter.

[batperson]

Social people will be fine, I think this tech is far more important for lonely people who for any reason don't get to socialize much (if at all), this is especially common in older people. These people might not have any other alternatives.

[hackrmn]

I think a fundamental and flawed assumption in your general line of argument boils down to that line:

> Social people will be fine

Thing is, "social" is not only a scale, it's not even a line for scale. It's this multidimensional space of different social preferences and different preferences as to _how_ to socialise, not to mention with whom and for what reason. In short, it's much more complicated than as to permit a "binary" division into the "social" and "other" people, but even if you did, I would wager the division puts it at 50% for either group, meaning you're basically describing a cataclysmic event where 50% of the population suddenly has no access to a fundamental trait of humanity that in known and unknown ways has assured our feeling of happiness and warded off a plethora of conditions of misery and worse that psychology has no names for (and won't ever have names for because that's like classifying different gradations of drinkable water, I imagine).

But yeah, humanity has always had to evolve, it's just that these changes come too fast for our adaptability to adapt to, I believe.

[anon-3988]

> I think this tech is far more important for lonely people who for any reason don't get to socialize much (if at all), this is especially common in older people.

Uhm, those lonely people need to get out and start talking. How is this going to help society? This is going to make it worse.

Oh that kid is kinda quite and sad? Throw him an iPad. Oh that adult is kinda bored and wandering aimlessly? Throw him into a casino. Oh that adult is kinda lonely and feels like they don't have anyone they can talk to about their life? Give them LLM companionship.

Yep, it is over for humanity. People simply don't understand externalities.

[batperson]

What about people with disabilities, physical or mental, who can't get out, old people with no family or family who doesn't care? In theory it would be great if everyone got some attention and socialized, in reality a lot of people in society are forgotten, no one wants to talk to them.

For some of these people even talking to a robot would likely be a huge improvement in quality of life, and that's just talking. If said robots could also help them out in real life, sort of like a personal assistant, that would be even better.

[jonstaab]

These people are an opportunity for the rest of us to be better people, to show compassion and mercy. They are not worthless to the rest of society. Giving them LLM companions says that they are — that their only self-worth is their feelings.

[nativeit]

Who’s paying for this? Nice sentiment, but last I checked prices weren’t coming down, and we’re talking about a cohort that doesn’t generally have a ton of extra cash.

[anon-3988]

> What about people with disabilities, physical or mental, who can't get out, old people with no family or family who doesn't care? In theory it would be great if everyone got some attention and socialized, in reality a lot of people in society are forgotten, no one wants to talk to them.

I mentioned in another comment that I totally get it for these people. You are using the extreme cases to justify opioid for the masses. The moment you "solved" human loneliness and interacting by giving them drugged up with chatbots, its over. I am telling you, it is over.

AI psychosis is bad enough as it is with really poor imitation. The moment it can imitate and fool the average person, I just don't see why most people need real friends anymore. We will NEVER be able to get it out of kids hand, the cats out of the bag. You think kids growing up with social media and ipad is bad? Lets see what happens if they live in actual fantasy land with their robotic friends.

I don't even know if I want to live in that world anymore.

Also, your solution to lonely people with disabilities or old age is to create robotic "Friends" for them? This is just sickening. You might as well just drug them. The _actual_ solution is to create a compassionate society where this doesn't happen. The solution to overworked society isn't more opium to relieve the pain.

[jamilton]

>Uhm, those lonely people need to get out and start talking.

Great, what is being done to help that happen?

[anon-3988]

Unironically just "man up". I get that there are some people that have actual sickness that prevents them from socializing but your little anxiety does not count. Believe me, I know I have the same problem. I quite literally had no friends for almost 7 years or after highschool. Society can't afford to babysit a 30 years old man that have anxiety and doesn't want to put any effort. My parent had to call me to check if I am alive, and even then, I don't feel like talking to them after months of no talking. I had zero interest to form any kind of relationship. That feeling that you have when you are feeling like "I would rather just order Uber", yea, you need to OVERCOME that. That is the effort. Ruminating, thinking and fantasizing about what "could have been" does not count.

Even if all I am saying is bullshit, "what is being done to help"? What about what is being done to make it way, way, way, way, way worse. If I had LLM companionship when I was alone, yea, I would have never gotten out of my shell. I would be stuck in there forever. Hell, why should I even talk to you? I should just argue with a robot instead.

[breezybottom]

AI girlfriends, apparently.

[andai]

There are still lots of social people. I found a lot of people actually do want to talk but are just shy.

I spent a few weeks at a hostel last year. It was always kind of depressing and tense in the shared kitchen, just this heavy silence.

I don't feel comfortable around strangers, so I solved that problem by just saying hi to everyone.

Most people didn't respond much, although most of them smiled and the tension was eased. But a few of them struck up conversation and we ended up making friends.

I ended up making like, ten new friends in two weeks. And then a bunch of them ended up becoming friends with each other as well.

[domga]

This is an individual solution to a systemic problem. On a personal level, it is possible to solve such problems, but generally no, the ship has sailed quite some time ago (I personally think cars are to blame).

Even if you do it, you are still swimming against the current.

[logicchains]

>This is an individual solution to a systemic problem. On a personal level, it is possible to solve such problems

I.e. it's only a problem if you're not willing to go and strike up conversations with people. Which is not AI or mobile phones' fault. Expecting society to come up with "systemic situations" to your personal problems is a fast path to a lifetime of disappointment.

[Kbelicius]

> it's only a problem if you're not willing to go and strike up conversations with people.

It is not a problem if there are other people willing to also go and strike up conversations with people. That is why GP wrote that it is a systemic problem that can be solved on a personal level.

> Expecting society to come up with "systemic situations" to your personal problems is a fast path to a lifetime of disappointment.

It is not a personal problem. It is a systemic problem. Are you conflating on purpose or do you not understand the difference?

And it is a systemic problem, all you need to do is look at the data.

[monkaiju]

Hasnt this already been thoroughly discussed? Your ability to do X degrades as you offload it more frequently, eventually to the point that you can no longer even vet the quality of the output.

I think the parent is saying now that that is attempting to be applied to "creativity" directly, as opposed to something like a shift of medium, that it threatens many peoples' ability to maintain creative capabilities.

Anecdotally I've already experienced this at work where post-AI we had a junior completely stagnate and a senior with over a decade of experience in the bay atrophy to the point that he had to be let go.

[xpct]

We're yet to see how this plays out, but a competing business model for creative work is emerging, where it's delegated to chatbots. Naturally, this would result in less creative work for humans.

[perching_aix]

Playing the devil's advocate a little, you say "can't also do", but that implies prohibition, not hindering. Hindering is not total like that.

It's like trying to have meaningful conversations on Twitter. You don't go to Twitter to do things like that. Can you? Sure. It's just not what the format and the conventions (and the people) lend themselves to.

I don't think there's much merit in pretending that human activities are only shaped by hard limits.

[zkmon]

I'm no longer writing code from scratch, as I used to do before. So, very soon, it will be "AI can now do X" makes it so I can't also do X? Same with many creative works. Radio music already sounds so plastic. I lost interest in crafting my text drafts because I can just dump some ugly text and get it refined by AI.

[small_model]

You no longer have to grow your own food, can go to supermarket, but doesnt stop you from still doing it.

[esafak]

I hope that's not the future of work before UBI gets settled, because almost nobody grows their own food.

[motoxpro]

I'm confused. It feels like you are saying you did those things as a means to an end.

Like saying I no longer walk because I can drive. I no longer cook because Doordash exists. I no longer play piano because midi exists.

I mean i guess, but it seems like you didn't LIKE crafting the text or coding from scratch, you just wanted the outcome. If we are talking purely about work, I understand that its about being productive and it sucks to have a job shift to something you enjoy less.

But for daily life? I dont see how it changes, maybe its a tech thing where people think about making their daily lives more productive, but most people dont.

[zkmon]

The human-ness is not about outcomes only. It is about doing things, thinking, achieving, socializing, sharing, bonding, feeling happy about what you did, using senses for what they evolved fir, recognizing and responding to body signals and being a biological creature. A lot of these is affected by AI.

[motoxpro]

None of those are affected by AI.

You can CHOOSE to let AI think for you or achieve for you, but you dont have to. You only HAVE to in a work context (for some people), which I admit sucks (or is great depending on who you are).

This feels like a touch grass moment.

[zkmon]

The auto companies said the same - you don't HAVe to drive a car. But then cities were designed for cars, with far-flung work places. Now you HAVE to drive to work. Same with AI. Your world will be woven around AI, giving you no option.

[overgard]

In a personal context, you're not hindered from doing those things, so you're correct in that regard. The problem is economic and social. The AI is mediocre enough to drive the value of those things way down; possibly to zero. When something isn't valuable, people are less likely to learn it, and in the future it's less likely that anyone will actually have those skills. For example, we've slopped many illustrators out of jobs and essentially made art (an already awful paying career before AI) economically infeasible. AI illustrations kind of suck though, and even when they're technically competent they're kind of soulless. So you might say, ok, I will hire/contract an artist if I care about the quality of my illustration! Ok, but, if artists are being priced out by a machine then how long before there's no real market for finding a human to do it because all the artists gave up and got a job at starbucks and all you have left are amateurs?

This is almost certainly going to bite us in the ass long term, because eventually without human creativity you're just training AI's on other AI slop, or limiting the possible catalogue of styles to "things that existed before AI ruined every creative job". I guess the question is, what kind of future do you want to live in? One where we have a massive abundance of easy-to-create but vaguely worthless artifacts in a society that's completely devalued being good at something? It just sounds really dystopian to me.

[spongebobstoes]

"starving artist" is not a new concept

AI doesn't stop creative people from creating. it gives creative people an additional tool with which to create

[FridgeSeal]

This is repeatedly the argument rolled out by people desperate to get us to accept it at all costs.

Ai doesn’t technically stop me writing code. But it’s sucked so much joy and interest out of it, that I can’t scrape together the motivation to work on side projects anymore. It has a “chilling effect” the effects of which are notoriously indirect to observe.

[spongebobstoes]

why does me using AI affect your motivation at all?

[breezybottom]

Then why is it only the least creative people who use it?

[overgard]

> "starving artist" is not a new concept

Exactly, so why make it worse? Why try to automate an industry when the money you make off killing it wouldn't even cover the cost of your research?

> AI doesn't stop creative people from creating. it gives creative people an additional tool with which to create

I can't emphasize enough how much actual creative people hate this shit. Here's a relatively balanced take, although the headline spoils it (How AI Poisons Creativity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeCSzEtZcUw ). Long story short, the struggle is where creative ideas come from. If you automate away the process you automate away the result.

[supern0va]

Counter-point: I love that my rubber duck can talk (quack?) back, as well as record and summarize my thoughts on topics I'm working or stuck on.

I've wanted a good voice mode for precisely this reason. When I take my dog on a walk and I'm thinking about a bunch of problems/ideas, I'd love to have feedback and a record, or perhaps to even kick off research or ask questions to fill in gaps that would otherwise have me debating pulling out my phone to try to get an answer.

[zkmon]

You want to be a child forever, amazed by your toys or the new things you can do. The toys won't let you grow up and become a normal human. You don't need take a dog for a walk, if you live in a normal place that allows dogs to roam freely. And you don't need to think about a "bunch of problems/ideas". Your mind is a servant of your body. And your body never asked you for that.

[supern0va]

>You want to be a child forever, amazed by your toys or the new things you can do.

I don't think having a child-like sense of wonder at the world, or continued human ingenuity, is a sign that one wants to be a child forever.

I'm genuinely sorry if you've lost that spark.

>You don't need take a dog for a walk, if you live in a normal place that allows dogs to roam freely.

I love my dog and love walking him, even though he can freely roam on my property. I also love walking with my wife, and I don't think her agency has much reason for why I might enjoy it?

>Your mind is a servant of your body. And your body never asked you for that.

...are you okay, friend?

[ryandvm]

> "Well, we were just responding to our business competition" The business knows no humanness, because it is not a human.

Yup. Except, by God, we ought to make sure the business has unlimited free speech (i.e. campaign contributions).

[bb88]

Businesses have been anti-human for a while now.

If you think AI is bad, wait until I tell you about the horrors of social media who profit on controversy and division, US health insurance which profits on rejecting claims, and big pharma profiting on the opioid epidemic.

And it's not like this is new, either. Upton Sinclair was writing about this stuff a century ago with books like The Jungle.

The only difference between then and now is we "think" we're not evil today. We've lied to ourselves that "We're so much better than we were back then." Facebook wanted to bring people together originally, but they ended up providing the most toxic social media experience known to man. Facebook forgot to tell us they cared more about profit than people.

Please spare me the argument AI is the straw to break the camel's back here. The system has been broken a long time before that.

[Citizen_Lame]

Bit naive world view. There are forces of rich and powerful who's only purpose is to maintain their status.

So thinking corporations and such were created to push human progress is laughable.