Recently, I posted this thread.
sanctioned-suicide.net
I let AI generate a SaSu politics debate. I generated a conversation between noname223, Forever Sleep, darkrange55 and Dejected 55.
What if one day I die by accident or intentionally, but AI just replaces me. Will it matter to the people who read my posts? Some people actually like my threads. But what if AI could produce exactly the same content? Maybe even better. But aren't the mistakes I make, in some way also a feature? I wouldn't come across as a foreigner for most native speakers if my language was fully idiomatical. Is it necessary that genuine content has a human component? And how does this component look like? Is there a reasonable common ground? Because I think even people who boycott AI cannot fully separate themselves from the impact of this technology. At least if one communicates with other people. Or whether one wants to hold a job in the future. There is a friend of me who wants to move to Japan. But despises AI. I told him I think in Japan they are more progressive towards the integration of AI in the industry he wants to work in.
Is there a presupposition that good content can only be produced by humans? Does the core have to produced by humans? But isn't AI trained with content produced mostly by humans?
Or is it thus impossible to be genuinely creative when using AI? If it just merges old content in an eclectic way but nothing genuinely new. However, what if AI could also do that? If the technical objections could be fixed. What if one day, AI is not hallucinating anymore? What if AI is genuinely better in almost everything compared to all humans? What would change? I mean if efficiency and economic rational asserts itself we know the answer. Would it be boring though? Could we rewire our brains that not working becomes the new normal? We had to reinvent the social systems for sure. But will the weak Western systems be able to enforce that? Will people riot? Will people commit suicide because of this?
I have the feeling AI might be opium for the people. Similar to social media. We look at displays how people travel, eat good food, have fun, enjoy their lives while we are the spectators not experiencing anything of it. We live in the illusion we actually lived our lives. It is alienating us from the experience what it means to be a human. But in fact we are only observers. In some way this technology is seductive. As a therapist I have the feeling, when it is used very carefully it is to superior to the therapist I had. But with the high risk to be an echo chamber. One has to be really reflective when using it. But it is a replacement of real people. Actually, we should fight for our right for good therapists, lawyers available also to poor people etc. It seems to be a race to the bottom. It plays off poor people with people whose jobs will be replaced. This will increase injustice. But does this have the potential to give people access to help which wasn't accessible thus far? It also has the potential to make everything worse with the current state of the technology. But if these problems could be remedied?
If social media and AI is alienating us is the technology behind it the fault? Why isn't Sanctioned Suicide alienating us? Because it has a different logic to social media? But the technology to social media is very similar. So maybe the technology is not the problem, but the way we are using it? On the other hand, what if the internet never existed? In order to socialize I had to leave my room. Maybe my social skills improved? Or maybe with my neurodiverse predispositions I could never cope with so much overstimulation? I tend to the latter interpretation. But in some way it might be true, connections over the internet are double-edged if social skills get less when the usage becomes excessive. But what if there never was a resilience in the first place to deal with the outer world? Maybe this applies to many poor people in developing countries. Some of them don't even have access to the internet, let alone access to a lawyer or therapist. At the same time the AI models are trained with Western information and discriminate against them.
Do humans have an inherent value? Does human life has an inherent value? And some members of this forum might reply with no. Why shouldn't AI replace as many humans as possible? If AI replaced most workers, it could fix the demographic crisis. But should the research be aiming for that or are we opening pandora's box? I think the notion of solipsism can be really toxic and can turn people into narcissists. But what if actually most people we interact with online really were only NPCs? But what if our own consciousness was simulated too? And we just think we were alive, while not actually be living right now? I know cogito ergo sum but what if this is all just an illusion too? When we are not sure whether we live in a simulation, why are we so sure we are actually living? If anything is on the table, why not that? Maybe because it feels real. But there are interesting phenomenon. Because for different people, different things feel real. I see this with delusions. For some the belief in God is something they believe in deeply and full trust. But what differentiates them from people with religion delusions? Especially, if the first group is fully convinced of it with no doubts left. And some convinced atheists consider both of them delusional on a similar level.
Human seem to be able to cope with uncertainty to a certain degree. But our brain also has mechanisms to cope with uncertainty and in our brain it creates a fake certainty instead. We would not able to function in or cope with the real world if we questioned everything all the time. It could also drive people into madness if they are questioning their existence. But different societies have different standards for insanity. And it depends on the point of view. Many people believe in things there is no empirical evidence for. However, how important are nuances in this? Is this the same as being superstitious? And to which degree?
How sure are you this text was writen by a human? Not only because of the countless formal mistakes. How certain are you about the notions in your own head? If you imagine me typing this into my computer who are you seeing then? You don't know how I look. Maybe you have a notion of me in your head. But aren't most notions we have about ourselves and about others often not just a product of biases and heuristics to deal with the ocean of information we are confronted with on a daily bases? You might can deep research my posts of me on here. But we will never meet. If you close this tab you might never think about me again. Did it matter to you I existed? Is there inherent value in the text I write here?. Or is the impact of this text the real value of it? And arguably the impact of this text is infinitesimal small. But is there any real difference if the exact same text you read here was written by a bot or even a different human being using my account? Would there be an ontological change in the reality of this post?
A little experiment with AI - generating a Sanctioned Suicide politics discussion
There was something like that between Slavoj Zizek and Werner Herzog. But I think the way they fed the model was better. I might update this thread one day with a better version. I think the results are pretty mediocre. But it is still halfway funny. I had to ask 3 AI models to generate the 4...
sanctioned-suicide.net
This reply made me thinking.
What if one day I die by accident or intentionally, but AI just replaces me. Will it matter to the people who read my posts? Some people actually like my threads. But what if AI could produce exactly the same content? Maybe even better. But aren't the mistakes I make, in some way also a feature? I wouldn't come across as a foreigner for most native speakers if my language was fully idiomatical. Is it necessary that genuine content has a human component? And how does this component look like? Is there a reasonable common ground? Because I think even people who boycott AI cannot fully separate themselves from the impact of this technology. At least if one communicates with other people. Or whether one wants to hold a job in the future. There is a friend of me who wants to move to Japan. But despises AI. I told him I think in Japan they are more progressive towards the integration of AI in the industry he wants to work in.
Is there a presupposition that good content can only be produced by humans? Does the core have to produced by humans? But isn't AI trained with content produced mostly by humans?
Or is it thus impossible to be genuinely creative when using AI? If it just merges old content in an eclectic way but nothing genuinely new. However, what if AI could also do that? If the technical objections could be fixed. What if one day, AI is not hallucinating anymore? What if AI is genuinely better in almost everything compared to all humans? What would change? I mean if efficiency and economic rational asserts itself we know the answer. Would it be boring though? Could we rewire our brains that not working becomes the new normal? We had to reinvent the social systems for sure. But will the weak Western systems be able to enforce that? Will people riot? Will people commit suicide because of this?
I have the feeling AI might be opium for the people. Similar to social media. We look at displays how people travel, eat good food, have fun, enjoy their lives while we are the spectators not experiencing anything of it. We live in the illusion we actually lived our lives. It is alienating us from the experience what it means to be a human. But in fact we are only observers. In some way this technology is seductive. As a therapist I have the feeling, when it is used very carefully it is to superior to the therapist I had. But with the high risk to be an echo chamber. One has to be really reflective when using it. But it is a replacement of real people. Actually, we should fight for our right for good therapists, lawyers available also to poor people etc. It seems to be a race to the bottom. It plays off poor people with people whose jobs will be replaced. This will increase injustice. But does this have the potential to give people access to help which wasn't accessible thus far? It also has the potential to make everything worse with the current state of the technology. But if these problems could be remedied?
If social media and AI is alienating us is the technology behind it the fault? Why isn't Sanctioned Suicide alienating us? Because it has a different logic to social media? But the technology to social media is very similar. So maybe the technology is not the problem, but the way we are using it? On the other hand, what if the internet never existed? In order to socialize I had to leave my room. Maybe my social skills improved? Or maybe with my neurodiverse predispositions I could never cope with so much overstimulation? I tend to the latter interpretation. But in some way it might be true, connections over the internet are double-edged if social skills get less when the usage becomes excessive. But what if there never was a resilience in the first place to deal with the outer world? Maybe this applies to many poor people in developing countries. Some of them don't even have access to the internet, let alone access to a lawyer or therapist. At the same time the AI models are trained with Western information and discriminate against them.
Do humans have an inherent value? Does human life has an inherent value? And some members of this forum might reply with no. Why shouldn't AI replace as many humans as possible? If AI replaced most workers, it could fix the demographic crisis. But should the research be aiming for that or are we opening pandora's box? I think the notion of solipsism can be really toxic and can turn people into narcissists. But what if actually most people we interact with online really were only NPCs? But what if our own consciousness was simulated too? And we just think we were alive, while not actually be living right now? I know cogito ergo sum but what if this is all just an illusion too? When we are not sure whether we live in a simulation, why are we so sure we are actually living? If anything is on the table, why not that? Maybe because it feels real. But there are interesting phenomenon. Because for different people, different things feel real. I see this with delusions. For some the belief in God is something they believe in deeply and full trust. But what differentiates them from people with religion delusions? Especially, if the first group is fully convinced of it with no doubts left. And some convinced atheists consider both of them delusional on a similar level.
Human seem to be able to cope with uncertainty to a certain degree. But our brain also has mechanisms to cope with uncertainty and in our brain it creates a fake certainty instead. We would not able to function in or cope with the real world if we questioned everything all the time. It could also drive people into madness if they are questioning their existence. But different societies have different standards for insanity. And it depends on the point of view. Many people believe in things there is no empirical evidence for. However, how important are nuances in this? Is this the same as being superstitious? And to which degree?
How sure are you this text was writen by a human? Not only because of the countless formal mistakes. How certain are you about the notions in your own head? If you imagine me typing this into my computer who are you seeing then? You don't know how I look. Maybe you have a notion of me in your head. But aren't most notions we have about ourselves and about others often not just a product of biases and heuristics to deal with the ocean of information we are confronted with on a daily bases? You might can deep research my posts of me on here. But we will never meet. If you close this tab you might never think about me again. Did it matter to you I existed? Is there inherent value in the text I write here?. Or is the impact of this text the real value of it? And arguably the impact of this text is infinitesimal small. But is there any real difference if the exact same text you read here was written by a bot or even a different human being using my account? Would there be an ontological change in the reality of this post?
Last edited:
