Future Tech

Sort:
Avatar of Elroch
xch00F wrote:
Elroch wrote:

There is a difference based on your knowledge of what is at the other end.

that's not a functional difference when the ai and the ostensibly real person interact with you in the same way

There is a difference in your understanding of what is happening in the world as a whole. You are forgetting about the part that is not directly perceived by you but of which you have knowledge.

Avatar of AwesomeAtti
fester_forever wrote:

Developing a personal relationship with an AI is most definitely not beneficial nor therapeutic.

I think the movie Minority Report had a significant influence on UI/UX design. I think the movie Her may have a similar influence for UX design in AI and personal/voice assistants.

I read this study: Older adults’ intention to use voice assistants: Usability and emotional needs. The report was surprised that perceived companionship was such an important factor influencing older adults use of voice assistants (but not confirmed by other studies).

It seems voice assistants may be beneficial for older adults in dealing with loneliness. It will be interesting if more research will link voice assistants to improved health (physical or mental) outcomes. Or perhaps a study of emotional dependence on voice assistants. Facebook launched 20 years ago and it seems only in the past few years we started talking about the negative impact of social media (or at least legislation).

Avatar of Elroch

There is a lot of potential for robotics and automation in care of the elderly, which is potentially a big boon to society as a whole. Apparently studies have found a strong positive response. The Japanese are world leaders, I believe.

Avatar of shadaomatch

World's most lethal weapons:

Avatar of idem_as_heck
Elroch wrote:
xch00F wrote:
Elroch wrote:

There is a difference based on your knowledge of what is at the other end.

that's not a functional difference when the ai and the ostensibly real person interact with you in the same way

There is a difference in your understanding of what is happening in the world as a whole. You are forgetting about the part that is not directly perceived by you but of which you have knowledge.

well no I'm not forgetting about it, my point is that it doesn't matter nearly as much to other people as you think it does, or does to you. if we're talking about "real" in the context of relationships, I would argue that most people parse "real" as synonymous with "genuine" or "sincere." when I make a distinction between friends offline and online, that's the distinction I make, offline versus online. to me, a "real" friend is someone who can be serious and listen to my problems, someone who I can depend on, with the understanding that they too can depend on me. I think most people would say that someone who's only using a friendship for their own personal benefit is the "fake" friend.

no offense, I hate to say it like this, but you are a person in the abstract. obviously I know (or hope) that the person I'm responding to right now is another silly nerd burning their weekend posting on message boards, reading posts, thinking about them and replying by physically pressing buttons on a keyboard. but functionally, your identity as a person online is really just your username, avatar, maybe the flag next to your username, and the way you post. I'm sure if I got to know you, you would probably fall into the "real" friend bucket. but truly, when the abstraction is in place, does it really matter whether or not the person on the other end is biological or digital when our interactions are entirely digital? not really, at least not imo. if someone were to vent to you and/or vent to an AI about the dumb happenings of their dumb life and they get a response that reads like genuine care and it makes them want to keep on trucking, who cares

Avatar of AwesomeAtti
Elroch wrote:

There is a lot of potential for robotics and automation in care of the elderly, which is potentially a big boon to society as a whole. Apparently studies have found a strong positive response. The Japanese are world leaders, I believe.

Some cultures may be more technology forward (like Japan). I think voice assistants may have an easier adoption rate compared to other technologies. There may be some ethical issues we may not have considered if others become dependent on the technology or are unable to differentiate real from technology. I vaguely remember in Wall-E how society became dependent on technology.

SenseRobot makes a Go playing robot. Very tele-tubby looking. Blinking eyes. Trying to make it more human. They were on the chess.com forums discussing a chess playing robot.

Here is SenseRobot's chess playing robot. Mechanics aside, I think it's a cute and possibly personable chess companion. I think Asian cultures may have a preference to make technology look more human (even if other cultures find it a bit childish, especially like some of my posts).

Avatar of DiogenesDue

Technology is just the medium that makes things more efficient. The problems that result have always been there, buried in human nature.

Avatar of AwesomeAtti
DiogenesDue wrote:

Technology is just the medium that makes things more efficient. The problems that result have always been there, buried in human nature.

As another OTFer once said... "sometimes the medium is the message".

Avatar of DiogenesDue
AwesomeAtti wrote:

As another OTFer once said... "sometimes the medium is the message".

That was Marshall McLuhan, but point taken happy.png.

Avatar of AwesomeAtti
DiogenesDue wrote:
AwesomeAtti wrote:

As another OTFer once said... "sometimes the medium is the message".

That was Marshall McLuhan, but point taken .

I don't think he said "sometimes". He definitely said "medium was the message" happy.png. Sorry this is one of my serious threads.

Avatar of teri-udon

I've heard a few things from AI discussion, and I was wondering about it's authenticity. So, as many know, AI takes content off of the internet to boost its knowledge, but I've heard theories that as answers come out, it will favor some, and soon will become more obsolete, and give fewer unique answers as AI fills the internet, thus making it a cycle. Of course, I'm not quite sure about this theory's authenticity, but I'll see if I can find any articles to support it.

[EDIT]: found an article supporting it here. 🌼

Avatar of Elroch
teriyaki-udon wrote:

I've heard a few things from AI discussion, and I was wondering about it's authenticity. So, as many know, AI takes content off of the internet to boost its knowledge, but I've heard theories that as answers come out, it will favor some, and soon will become more obsolete, and give fewer unique answers as AI fills the internet, thus making it a cycle. Of course, I'm not quite sure about this theory's authenticity, but I'll see if I can find any articles to support it.

[EDIT]: found an article supporting it here. 🌼

I find this argument convincing. There are several good experiments where they have looked at what happens when you go through multiple cycles of generation of text and learning from that text. The results are never pretty!

I always come back to the fundamental point that an LLM is designed to generate text that looks (statistically) like its sources. i.e. text that looks genuine. It is only a sort of accidental side effect that the outputs often make sense (other times they merely look like they make sense and are actually false).

Avatar of teri-udon

On a separate note, it's kind of mind-boggling that, soon, we're going to have Jet Suit races taking place. In my opinion, it seems like it has the potential to become a mainstream sport. I think the technology they're using is quite revolutionary, but it's nice to see it used in recreational activities too. We are quite late on the "Flying Cars" speculations, though... 🌼

Avatar of Elroch
AwesomeAtti wrote:
Elroch wrote:

There is a lot of potential for robotics and automation in care of the elderly, which is potentially a big boon to society as a whole. Apparently studies have found a strong positive response. The Japanese are world leaders, I believe.

Some cultures may be more technology forward (like Japan). I think voice assistants may have an easier adoption rate compared to other technologies. There may be some ethical issues we may not have considered if others become dependent on the technology or are unable to differentiate real from technology. I vaguely remember in Wall-E how society became dependent on technology.

SenseRobot makes a Go playing robot. Very tele-tubby looking. Blinking eyes. Trying to make it more human. They were on the chess.com forums discussing a chess playing robot.

Here is SenseRobot's chess playing robot. Mechanics aside, I think it's a cute and possibly personable chess companion. I think Asian cultures may have a preference to make technology look more human (even if other cultures find it a bit childish, especially like some of my posts).

In the 1980s, a member of my town chess club (who happened to be a teacher), had some sort of chess computer with a robot arm that moved the pieces. Fun thing for those who preferred playing on physical board.

Although I don't recall from the time, I infer it was probably the Novag Robot Adversary.

Avatar of teri-udon

Do you all think the subject of this article is ethical, and why or why not? 🌺

Avatar of idem_as_heck
fester_forever wrote:

Any use of AI for societal consumption should be regulated to at least prevent pretentions of being sentient.

Any interaction should never be allowed to contain the use of "I" or "my" or anything to make people believe it is a thinking organism.

All responses in a social interaction should be preceded by:

"The words you are reading are the result of computer generated information. The source of these words contain no emotion whatsoever and are simply derived from data searches you could find on your own. They are not opinions but simply contrivances based on computer programing."

Humans are basically gullible in the extreme. I have no doubt AI is already being used to produce desired human reactions by politically motivated creators.

Computers will never be capable of independent annihilation of humans but they can definitely be used by humans as a weapon.

this is so autistic lmao

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

...lol ! ...u mean a autist who watches way too much tv ?

Avatar of RoadOcean
This is going to be way to popular :)
Avatar of Elroch

The idea that rules are need to prevent AI masquerading as people is valid. Other that that, the notion that, say, ChatGPT should be forbidden from using the word "I" is not justified.

Avatar of AwesomeAtti
fester_forever wrote:

Any interaction should never be allowed to contain the use of "I" or "my" or anything to make people believe it is a thinking organism.

All responses in a social interaction should be preceded by:

"The words you are reading are the result of computer generated information. The source of these words contain no emotion whatsoever and are simply derived from data searches you could find on your own. They are not opinions but simply contrivances based on computer programing."

Interesting. I think personalizing technology with human characteristics can help drive adoption and make it more accessible. I see where you're coming from though. I don't know if this is a significant issue right now.

Siri uses "I" and "my". Have there been any incidents where this caused harm to anyone?

I strongly believe content generated by AI should be tagged and include a disclaimer of some sort.