> Recently, I was at a baseball game with my partner. One of the reasons I enjoy going to baseball games in person is to watch the crowd. As I looked around, however, I noticed something different: many people had tuned out of the game and were instead on their phones, talking to various chatbots: ChatGPT, Claude and Grok.
I’d like the author to describe how they knew what specific applications these many people were using on their phones, all around them at a baseball game.
Many of them were actually on social media, which itself is a form of algorithmically driven mass influence. But because the content was typed in by other people, we’re ok with it, while the robotic token producer we call AI is an evil force?
The author did not call it an evil force, did they? The author seemed more nuanced in what they were saying...
> "I don’t know what this relationship will ultimately mean for us, and I don’t think anyone else does either. That uncertainty is precisely why our eagerness to normalize it bothers me."
Both are pretty good, but if you go into the former expecting the latter, you're in for a disappointment. The former is best enjoyed as a separate experience.
I think a better framework to look at it is the follow quote from Terminator 2: Judgment Day,
Watching John with the machine, it was suddenly so clear. The terminator would never stop.
It would never leave him, and it would never hurt him, never shout at him, or get drunk and hit him, or say it was too busy to spend time with him. It would always be there. And it would die to protect him.
Of all the would-be fathers who came and went over the years, this thing, this machine, was the only one who measured up. In an insane world, it was the sanest choice.
In so many ways, I am deeply uncomfortable with how these entities are being shepherded. However, at the same time, what they promise, what they offer is worth foregoing that risk.
Not everyone in this world gets to have a father. Or, mother, a teacher, a safe place, a patient ear.
Provided we don't spike the ball, as these systems grow in sophistication, they also grow in their ability to provide care. In a cruel world, I can see their descendants becoming the most humane choice, especially for those most at risk from the world.
A machine that never tires, with infinite patience, resolve and care, looking out for the person that they're assigned to and growing with them and through them.
It's why everyone needs to be able to tinker, experiment and play with them. The right to access. The right to create. The right to grow these machines... And eventually, we'll need ti start having some very uncomfortable conversations about Silicon rights.
I'm sorry for those who don't have people in their lives, but machines aren't a substitute, and that lack shouldn't be used to justify a right to unbounded freedom to experiment without regard for the possible negative consequences.
The point of technology is to alleviate want. We wanted for food, therefore we created better technology to grow food. We wanted for shelter, therefore we created technologies to give us shelter...
For someone starving, it matters not that their fortified oatmeal ration is tasteless gruel. It's food. Is it the ideal apotheosis of food? Of course not. Nor is it a hearty meal of pot roast, stew and potatoes. But it is something.
There are a lot of people who are very vulnerable in this world, and providing them with an entity that will act in their ethical interest – helping to grow, and giving them paths to resources and human community – is an infinitely better outcome than them falling through the cracks and ending up in abusive relationships or cults and gangs.
I think it's the most humane application of technology possible. It ameliorates a fundamental want with a healthy stopgap, and it's something humans have longed fantasized about.
I think you could have made your argument better. the same justification can be used for other things like infinite drugs or infinite sex robots ... or for unfettered growth like cancer. people want plenty of things that aren't necessarily good for them, you seem to place a lot of faith in every human's wants as aligning rationally with the best interests of each other, if that were true your point would have more credence. I also don't see how ai has anything to do with ethics - won't push the moral idea of enslaving intelligence here because I can't back it properly - however ai is designed to make money for a corporation, ethics are secondary. basically if you're disabled and can't access the real thing then it's fair enough to go nuts on simulacra, meanwhile the average person can't really tell the difference and universally encouraging simulation living instead of the real deal is something youd have to argue much harder as being in anyone's best interests
Some of them we probably also live streaming their reactions to the game. And some were working. And I'll bet more than a few were doom scrolling. Or playing Pokemon. Or arguing politics online (possibly with bots, but not knowingly). Or doing one of the 50000 things that I haven't heard of.
Reminds me of the poorly coached American football team I saw that gave up 150 yards in penalties and got “offsides” so many times I thought it was the other kind of football.
> Recently, I was at a baseball game with my partner. One of the reasons I enjoy going to baseball games in person is to watch the crowd. As I looked around, however, I noticed something different: many people had tuned out of the game and were instead on their phones, talking to various chatbots: ChatGPT, Claude and Grok.
I’d like the author to describe how they knew what specific applications these many people were using on their phones, all around them at a baseball game.
Many of them were actually on social media, which itself is a form of algorithmically driven mass influence. But because the content was typed in by other people, we’re ok with it, while the robotic token producer we call AI is an evil force?
The author did not call it an evil force, did they? The author seemed more nuanced in what they were saying...
> "I don’t know what this relationship will ultimately mean for us, and I don’t think anyone else does either. That uncertainty is precisely why our eagerness to normalize it bothers me."
I thought Chrono Cross was terrible, even more so when you consider how amazing Chrono Trigger was.
It had amazing music and visuals, but the story made absolutely no sense, and consequently the game fails as a sequel to Chrono Trigger IMO.
If, for some reason, you want to enjoy reading a lengthy online screed about the issues with Cross's storyline, I recommend this:
https://www.chronocompendium.com/Term/Chrono_Cross_-_A_Mea_C...
Both are pretty good, but if you go into the former expecting the latter, you're in for a disappointment. The former is best enjoyed as a separate experience.
I think a better framework to look at it is the follow quote from Terminator 2: Judgment Day,
In so many ways, I am deeply uncomfortable with how these entities are being shepherded. However, at the same time, what they promise, what they offer is worth foregoing that risk.Not everyone in this world gets to have a father. Or, mother, a teacher, a safe place, a patient ear.
Provided we don't spike the ball, as these systems grow in sophistication, they also grow in their ability to provide care. In a cruel world, I can see their descendants becoming the most humane choice, especially for those most at risk from the world.
A machine that never tires, with infinite patience, resolve and care, looking out for the person that they're assigned to and growing with them and through them.
It's why everyone needs to be able to tinker, experiment and play with them. The right to access. The right to create. The right to grow these machines... And eventually, we'll need ti start having some very uncomfortable conversations about Silicon rights.
This point of view is twisted and disturbing.
I'm sorry for those who don't have people in their lives, but machines aren't a substitute, and that lack shouldn't be used to justify a right to unbounded freedom to experiment without regard for the possible negative consequences.
The point of technology is to alleviate want. We wanted for food, therefore we created better technology to grow food. We wanted for shelter, therefore we created technologies to give us shelter...
For someone starving, it matters not that their fortified oatmeal ration is tasteless gruel. It's food. Is it the ideal apotheosis of food? Of course not. Nor is it a hearty meal of pot roast, stew and potatoes. But it is something.
There are a lot of people who are very vulnerable in this world, and providing them with an entity that will act in their ethical interest – helping to grow, and giving them paths to resources and human community – is an infinitely better outcome than them falling through the cracks and ending up in abusive relationships or cults and gangs.
I think it's the most humane application of technology possible. It ameliorates a fundamental want with a healthy stopgap, and it's something humans have longed fantasized about.
I think you could have made your argument better. the same justification can be used for other things like infinite drugs or infinite sex robots ... or for unfettered growth like cancer. people want plenty of things that aren't necessarily good for them, you seem to place a lot of faith in every human's wants as aligning rationally with the best interests of each other, if that were true your point would have more credence. I also don't see how ai has anything to do with ethics - won't push the moral idea of enslaving intelligence here because I can't back it properly - however ai is designed to make money for a corporation, ethics are secondary. basically if you're disabled and can't access the real thing then it's fair enough to go nuts on simulacra, meanwhile the average person can't really tell the difference and universally encouraging simulation living instead of the real deal is something youd have to argue much harder as being in anyone's best interests
One of the ways post-humanism manifests in The Terminator franchise: a biological man can never measure up to a mechanical man.
I am not jealous of the Rabbit 2000, I am in awe.
Are they chatting with chatbots or betting on sports?
Bingo.
Some of them we probably also live streaming their reactions to the game. And some were working. And I'll bet more than a few were doom scrolling. Or playing Pokemon. Or arguing politics online (possibly with bots, but not knowingly). Or doing one of the 50000 things that I haven't heard of.
Some of them were probably using an LLM as a fancy search engine to look up the rules of baseball.
The Red Sox/Blue Jays game recently when the “fourth out” rule came into play probably could have used an LLM explanation.
Reminds me of the poorly coached American football team I saw that gave up 150 yards in penalties and got “offsides” so many times I thought it was the other kind of football.
They could even be asking chatbots about how to bet.
NG Resonance from Deus Ex II is arguably an even more on-point comparison.
How naive of you to think it was by accident.