Rippounet

I don't think the issue is whether ChatGPT or other AIs are sentient. The issue is how do we prove we are. If everything that was once seen as proof of sentience (writing literature/poetry, writing/playing music, drawing/painting... etc) can be mimicked by programs then how do you prove that you are in fact sentient? Especially if even the confusion/metaphysical angst can be mimicked by a program... And it might seem trivial, but I really don't think it is. It's the question of "philosophical zombies," or as Nabokov put it, "the temptation of solipsism." If others can't prove to you that they are in fact human, then it is tempting to think you're the only one who truly thinks by himself, and all the others are just zombies/bots or secondary characters in your story. And again, it might seem trivial, but it really isn't. If you live in a world where you can no longer make the difference between AIs/bots and humans, then you will, by default, assume everyone else is a bot, and treat them as such. It all becomes one big video game. And in video games, it's not wrong to hurt or kill others. Or, if you're just on an internet board, there's no reason why you wouldn't start trolling people, because for all you know, they'r enot even real people.

We're worse than that: social primates with anxiety, obsessed with social status and sex. But if you build a society around that kind of truth, you're essentially creating a dystopian hellhole. You don't love humanity because it deserves to be loved (who the fuck could decide that?) ; you love humanity because you don't have a fucking choice, and living in a society that essentially makes human life worthless will sooner or later be hell for all but the most privileged.

Yes, but I'd like to unerline this passage: I think this points out that it's the specific combination of technology and capitalism that is so dangerous. So it depends how you want to define "Luddism." If we're talking about the historical movement, then yes, we should all be Luddites, because neoliberalism threatens to make any technology terrifying. But if we're using a more common sense of the word, I think it would be better to direct the rage at socio-economic structures instead of technology itself. I'd say Iain Banks had an interesting view of what AIs could provide humanity in a socialist perspective. One could argue that it's a rather paternalistic view, but I think such a view is warranted given history, and I'd rather take that than the absolutely moronic idea that "the market" will allow for the proper development and use of technology. Another way to put it is that I'm a bit reluctant to embrace Luddism, because the early days of computer science and IT offered incredible promises for humanity, that were only betrayed once massive corporations took over and redirected the entire enterprise toward maximizing profit. We still have remnants of the potential though, like wikipedia, and as I said earlier, communication really can be said to be a good in itself, so I'd rather target our corporate overlords than the machines.

Aren't you a bit quick to forget where this discussion is happening? Though I suppose that, if you're on the truly cynical side of things, you could argue that Martin killed himself as an author. Ah, shit. It really is the end times then.

So what? If we stop caring where our art comes from, after not caring where our objects or food come from, what's going to be left to make human life valuable? If it's all made by a system, why should I care about anyone that has no significant influence on me? If even art were to be created by machines, then the life of strangers would become truly meaningless. It's a small detail in the greater picture, and yet it could also be seen as a pretty big step on the road to nihilism.

I loathe the idea of the "death of the author." To be clear, I'm not denying it as a concept or as reality. All authors die eventually, literally (i.e. they can't explain what they meant forever) and figuratively (as the context changes, so will the reception of a given work). And yet, as real as it is, I'm reluctant to accept it as fact, because to view art this way is to adopt a form of "individualist constructivist" perspective according to which the only meaning that matters is the one that is constructed by the individual on the receiving end. And while this always ends up being the case eventually, I feel that is insulting to both art and the artist to accept this state of things and claim that once the message has been mediatised the original message itself no longer matters. I think the artist and their message should always matter and that, while reception may evolve, the interpretations of the message that are closer to the original intent will always be "truer" than others. That doesn't mean better, because "wrong" interpretations can be interesting and even sometimes may magnify a given work (Bradbury ). But simply that to come close to the meaning of the work as intended brings you closer to a successful act of communication between human beings, and that as hard as this may be, especially across the distances of space and time, this should always be viewed as a good in itself, and that humans should endeavor to achieve this, to better understand one another. So in an nutshell, while all authors do die eventually, I would say the "observers" should strive to help them exist, and then keep them alive as long as possible. To do otherwise would mean cutting ourselves off from each other a little bit more, and eventually, once we are all reduced to mere consumers, we will have lost something precious and be nothing more than beasts. And funnily enough, it turns out mass production of objects through industrial processes is unsustainable. Call me crazy, but I do believe there is a lesson here.

I think you're not asking the question you actually want to ask. The question isn't whether AI produces art. In the common sense of the term (an artistic creation produces emotions) or in some scholarly perspective (art is reception of a work, which is an active and evolving process), AI does produce art. But this raises a few interconnected questions: - AI can reproduce the artistic processes of humans (copying while introducing variations). This is a big one, because on some level life itself is also generating copies with variations. - The pursuit/production of art is one of the few things that is considered to elevate the human -mortal- existence. On some level, it is sacred, because producing meaning is the domain common to humans and God(s). - In a socio-economic structure that seeks to extract profit/rent out of all activities, won't AI-generated art be used to reduce humans to mere consumers of art, in yet another example of economic liberalism cheapening/lessening the human existence/experience by merchandising it? - Will we be able to notice if the quality of art stagnates - because we rely on machines too much, and their capacity to innovate ends up being less than that of humans? [i.e. if the first point/question turns out wrong, we may not even notice - at first] Or, as this tweet says in simple terms: Humans doing the hard jobs on minimum wage while the robots write poetry and paint is not the future I wanted So Scot, I think you want to ask whether AI should produce art, or whether this shouldn't be a sacred domain reserved to humans (and God(s)). Or, to put it differently, whether AI-generated art is a form of blasphemy. And though I'm not a luddite, I'm inclined to think that it is. Recent history shows humans tend to misuse technology, and in the current socio-economic structure, this kind of tool crosses the line. It would be more sensible to introduce a moratorium on AI right fucking now, before it crosses the next line. But of course, we're not going to do that.

Sounds like you discovered you could be conservative on some issues. This is a familiar narrative. I've read or heard it quite a few times now. I had a friend who spoke that way for a while, until I asked him what he meant. Turns out, he struggled to give me a single real-life example. The "woke movement" was nothing more than a feeling he had, based on the declarations of the most progressive politician here, some vague rumors of stuff that may or may not have happened at the other end of the country, and lots of stuff he'd seen on the internet. He hadn't seen or heard anything himself, he was just reacting to a reaction, with no first-hand knowledge of what had started the outrage in the first place. It's as if he was begging me to tell him that it wasn't real, and that "woke" was just a loosely connected ensemble of ideas and evolutions with little organizing behind them. After this discussion he never used the word again in my presence. Of course, that's my experience from outside the anglosphere, in a country which isn't *that* progressive, where there is no DEI in the workplace, where trans-identity is not being debated, and religious liberty or affirmative action are very limited... So it's easy for me to see attacks against "wokeness" as being manufactured by the right in my country. For historical reasons (the Revolution), France is not a place that focuses much on individual identity (we do all eat smelly cheese and drink wine, that's our thing), so it's mainly the right and the far-right that have invented the "woke movement" through public declarations and dodgy media outlets. If "woke" is anything here, it's both the right's bogeyman and a label for fasionable things that teenagers tell their middle-aged parents about. But I can't rule out that there is in fact such a movement in the US and UK. Maybe it's not just the right building up moral outrage over minor evolutions. After all, "woke" originally meant being aware of systemic racism, right? So I'm curious. When you speak of "social-justice, identity-focused, purity-over-pragmatism ideology," what do you mean exactly? How do you define "ideology" here? Who represents this movement and what do they say? Is the movement embodied by any specific organization? What have been the concrete real-life applications of the movement's principles? Has the movement had any legislative victories? Or are we merely talking about sociological trends, i.e., peer-pressure?

You godless commie.

Let's be honest, this threads exists because conservatives (on this forum and no doubt elsewhere) are spinning the Cass review as a vindication of their views, that is to say that the gender/trans- "ideology" is dangerous for kids, that gender and sex are identical, and that it is not scientific to allow kids (or anyone, really) to transition from their biological sex. And I mean, sure, you can see it that way, it would be silly to deny it. I would certainly say that the Cass review has a conservative tone. But then, a bit of context, uh? The review comes in the wake of a lawsuit involving GIDS, so it's also the British government having to cover its agency's ass, the Conservatives have been in power since forever now, and the topic is highly political (Sunak making recently a bad joke on the topic during PMQs, and being called out for it by Starmer comes to mind). So given the context, maybe it's good to take a bit of critical distance. Will access to medical treatment be more difficult? Probably a bit, but we don't know to what extent yet - for all we know it just means more interviews and paperwork. Nor do we know what the long-term consequences of the review will be - there's no guarantee that better procedures will mean numbers plummet. Because spin aside, there's a lot the review doesn't say. It doesn't say that there has been widespread abuse of malpractice, it doesn't say kids have been put in danger, and it doesn't deny the reality of trans-identity ; in fact, one might say the report goes out of its way to not say such things in spite of its conservative requirements. And for the record, the one figure I could find in the review about detransitioning was 6,9% (12 cases). There was also mention of an article studying detransition, but on about 235 individuals worldwide. So I think the spin that is being attempted here doesn't have much to stand on. All in all the report is what one can expect: it's a technical document to improve medical practices and procedures in the wake of a legal case. Of course it errs a bit on the cautious side, but refrains from making any sweeping claims or definitive assertions. The document can be spinned or implemented in various ways but in itself it really doesn't say that much. It's what you can expect from an official document after there was a legal issue. I'd be more concerned about the claim that it was impossible to have a discussion on the practices and procedures because of accusations of transphobia. I wouldn't know. Seen from a distance, there's far more of a conservative obsession with trans-identity than a widespread progressive "agenda" or "ideology." I would tend to assume that most people don't care that much, and that (like on this forum), it's a vocal minority that insists on stirring the pot and discussing these issues - until everyone eventually chimes in. In fact, I'd even be inclined to think that an important reason why there isn't more discussion on the issue is also because people on the right are loudly spreading reactionary views at every turn, and that moderates are relecutant to be associated with such a crowd. My point here being that while I know there are progressives with extreme views on gender, I haven't personally met any who are actively proselytizing on the topic whereas I have countless examples of people openly spreading their transphobic views. Lastly, if conservatives are so concerned about science being ignored in the political sphere, maybe they should turn this concern to an issue that's an actual existential threat for civilisation, like, I dunno, the fact that human activity is - slowly bur surely- making the planet uninhabitable? I don't like whataboutism as an argument, but FFS, if what you're afraid right now (April 2024) for your kids of is trans-identity of all things, perhaps your priorities are fucking bollocks.

Most people just dont care that much. Heck, IRL the trans people I know don't talk about these issues, they're just too busy with their lives.

If history is any guide, she will end up being Trump's co-runner*. *(this is meant as a joke - mostly)

Analyses have shown that by the 19th century, Britain was consuming 2 or 3 times the raw materials that it could produce. Annoyingly enough, I don't have the references handy right now. But those are the studies that are described as "woke" by the right here. The right wants such facts burried, because they show that there was something deeply predatory about the Western model from the start. This is the "standard" conservative narrative, and funnily enough it's deeply misleading. The industrial revolution and capitalism put people in factories to produce stuff. That was possible because fewer people were required to man the fields, which itself had been made possible through several factors (technical progress, a stable climate, better trade... ). And at first it was absolute hell on Earth, until sanitation, urbanisation, and unions made the thing livable. To credit technological progress or capitalism for the benefits of history is... biased.

What's happening now, but faster. Was that supposed to be a trick question ?

The video goes further than that though. I know my partner, being a show-viewer only, completely missed the importance of something whose importance the video explains... I told her because she doesn't give a fuck about spoilers but she's a bit weird on that front (she doesn't mind being told the end of a story before reading/watching it), and I personally prefer to try to figure things out on my own. Not trying to be a pain, but since this is a nerds' forum, I'd be curious to know what kind of policy would the moderation establish here, given that there was such a policy for ASOAIF...