A multi-modal AI can easily critique your body language, voice tonality, choice of words, etc, and give you tips on how to be more charismatic.
Why can't we just be who we are and people learn to be more accepting of how others are?
This sounds immensely boring, shifting everyone to use the same/similar body language, tonality, word choice, etc.
Maybe I'm strange, but I must prefer the diversity of people as they are.
I don't imagine many people forcing AI social guidance on others. But a lot of people want social guidance, and if an AI can help -- even if it's not as good as an unaffordable therapist -- some help is better than none.
> Why can't we just be who we are and people learn to be more accepting of how others are?
Which is more reasonable and realistic: the 20% Weirdos learn how to behave to fit in with the 80% Normies, or the 80% Normies learn how to handle ("accept") the 20% Weirdos?
In most systems, the minority adapts to the majority; this is especially true when the majority is fairly uniform and the minority is not, i.e. the minority has to learn one way to adapt to the majority while the majority would have to learn multiple ways to "accept" the minority.
It just seems like a double standard and that there are a lot of problems with this line of thought to me. I have trouble understanding it.
Think about something really benign that almost everyone can agree on, like Toastmasters. Perhaps in a few years w/ a VR headset you can improve public speaking in front of a virtual crowd if you’re so shy that doing it in front of a large group of strangers is just too terrifying.
My mind kept going over the question of how does the AI truly determine what the majority consensus is and is that really good or fair to make everyone conform to.
Like where do you draw the lines is what kept going around in my head.
If who you are is smelly and unwashed...
That doesn't need to be "make everyone act the same" as much as "cut on behaviour that creep/annoy 80% of the populace