Ok, I’ll bite.

Why?

Real talk, an asteroid wiping us out would only expedite the inevitable. If we could pull together and deflect an asteroid, there’s hope. If not, we failed the test and die with the consequences. But we don’t need the asteroid to fail this test. We’re making great strides towards destroying our home with home field advantage.

This one’s on my bingo card.

You sound like an ad. It triggered my uncanny valley response. Please never do that again.

What’s your favorite?

Removed by mod

The Tate boys. Or, dudes who peaked in highschool.

I uncontrollably smile when I talk to this day thanks to my call center experience. It’s an unwanted mask.

I think it’s a reasonable request that regulations be consistently applied rather than utilized at the whims of corporate favoritism. Facebook deserved a ban well before tiktok was an entity.

My money’s on lack of foresight and stubborn resistance to change.

I only stopped using mine because it got Zucked. I loved that thing before, and I’m still mad about it.

Odd. I just tried to google “pirate bay” and the top result was correct. Personalized results?

Is there a better amazon competitor?

I don’t see this stand up as proper AI at all. However, I do see the writing on the wall, and we are definitely attempting to build towards what I referenced, a proper simulation of consciousness. So all the AI projects coming out now feel like stepping stones towards that end.

I thoroughly agree that this happening under a capitalist system is a recipe for shit though. However, we have no way of removing capital from the equation at this time, and like it or not, people are going to be doing more projects exactly like this. As well they will be making money from it because that is literally the only way anything ever gets done when capital is the beginning and end of the discussion. That’s more an issue with capitalism than AI personas IMO. This is how things are going to happen, and I feel like we’re better off trying to inject morality into the situation than to pretend that it won’t happen or that we can stop it from happening. Otherwise, what we’re doing is standing around with angry expressions on our faces, doing fuck all while corporation steal our likenesses for profit.

We have to tread carefully from here.

Assuming we kill capitalism and form a more utopic society (which the Carlinbot amusingly is all for, but also cynically doesn’t think is possible), would AI recreations of existing or previously existing people still be an issue to you? I’m morbidly curious what an AI “me” would be like, and I can imagine others being against something like that coming to be.

I listened to the whole special, and I can agree with much of what the Carlinbot had to say. I think that’s fun.

I know there’s overwhelming hatred towards the idea of AI doing stuff like this, but I’m curious as to why exactly that is. I hate this about as much as I hate impressionists, which is a somewhat apt comparison. That is to say, I think it’s pretty neat and I’m curious what all went into making it happen, so I can’t say I hate it. Could someone break down why this is awful? Is it a “let the dead lie” kind of thing, keeping the dead sacred? Do we want the AI to be completely original, despite it being derivative in nature? Do we simply want AI not to exist at all? Is it just in poor taste? If so, who do we let define what constitutes good or poor taste?

I see AI as a philosophical issue, as it’s a technology seeking to cross the uncanny valley and simulate consciousness as we understand it, which has serious implications regarding the nature of consciousness, the concept of the self, how we define life and understanding, how much control we grant this artificial life, what rights artificial life should have, and plenty of other conundrums along the way. I honestly don’t think it’s as simple as “Carlin wouldn’t like this”, as this video is ultimately an unsatisfactory impression of a man that only goes on for one hour. There are worse things in the world we could be lambasting (as the Carlinbot points out mid-video), but there are clearly some implications involved that people are very upset by. So, where do we go from here?

There’s the issue. The US has a nasty habit of constant false-starts. The way things are set up, it’s really hard for anything to stick. Not impossible, mind you. But as soon as a Republican gets involved, projects tend to die. It’s a cycle of frustrating futility.

In a capitalist worldview, which is indeed the system we live in, your point makes sense. However, creative endeavors existed well before the ability to profit off of them. If I didn’t want for money in my daily life, I’d still be intensely motivated to create, as it’s one of the few things you can genuinely love doing regardless of if it’s making you money. Being creative is magnitudes more “basic human instinct” than making money will ever be, and I don’t buy for a second that “nobody would create anything” without the profit incentive. I do think that we would have a very different system for sharing our creativity without copyright, and it’d arguably be a better one than what we have now.

Considering the sheer amount of time people spend in schools during essentially all of their formative years, it’d be a terrible idea not to implement legislation that could prevent maladaptive behaviors in our populace. Schools are already affected by legislation via the Mindless Drone Initiative established by our industrial forefathers. We might as well update things to make it a Healthy Human Endeavor instead. Finger-wagging at imaginary parents is going to do fuck all by comparison.