dorchadas

No, we proceed because it makes people a lot of money consequences on society or the future be dammed.

> and it can be just as social.

I would argue it cannot be as social, even if you're talking to people. You won't ever get half the social cues that come from actual social interaction, nor the firing of mirror neurons that comes when people talk face-to-face, etc.

In fact, Turkle makes a good argument that online communication is destroying empathy among a whole generation of kids, and they don't even know how to really communicate in person with another human being anymore, nor any idea of social manners, etc. Having taught secondary school for five years, I can't agree more with her conclusions.

> No one I know shows up to a friends house on a whim or unannounced. It’s all planned activities and the art of conversation has died in the U.S. We are social creatures and the solitary nature of being online has an unhealthy, anti-social side effect.

100% agreed. I think it's actually the true underlying cause of the political fracturing we've seen in America (and are starting to see elsewhere as it filters out).

It's also the biggest difference I've noticed since moving to Ireland. People still sometimes show up unannounced, just to see if you're home and want to chat, especially in more rural areas; plus, you have the pub culture where people go and just have a drink and a chat. It's not great, because drinking is expected (though thankfully alcohol free options have come a long way) but it's much better than what exists in America.

I actually worry messenger apps like Discord make this worse, because you can just get a facsimile of human interaction online, and it's nowhere near the real thing; in fact, it can't be, because it won't trigger our brain the same way as seeing facial expressions, etc., does. Even more, I worry that as chatbots get better, we're going to see this trend get even worse as people turn to chatbots (and/or companies start shoving them in front of us). I can't see things getting better with the current state of the internet.

The calculator has ruined kid's ability to do arithmetic, and, because of it, they never develop any numeracy or sense of how numbers work. Which means when they hit algebra, they hit a brick wall once the abstraction starts to come in.

We will destroy a whole generation, in more ways than one. Chatbots will replace what vestiges are left of real in-person socialisation, and then all human connection will be gone. All while a certain few make amazing profits off of it, which they'll then use to insulate themselves from the negative societal repercussions of what they've created.

It's a very interesting article, and it gives me another reason to be skeptical of AI. Not only is it doing this with images, but also with writing, and it perpetuates that. We already see languages adopting English modes of thought where they didn't have it -- while, ironically, claiming to be decolonising their minds -- and it's leading to a loss of diversity in how languages express things, which is generally an underlying representation of how cultures conceive of them. English and the cultural hegemony of Anglophone countries is basically destroying diversity, in all forms, across the world.

This is exactly what's going to happen, and it's going to be disastrous for humanity. In fact, I think it'll be a bit worse.

Humans are already losing their ability to empathize and connect with each other, partially due to most interaction currently taking place behind screens (see Turkle's work). And we're not healthier for it; even with the plagarism issues, I think there's a lot of truth in Hari's Lost Connections, and AI serves to drive this even further, especially the 'virtual friend' platforms. I've seen it personally among myself and my friends, who then turn to legal weed to self-medicate. Ironically enough, they're the ones welcoming AI with open arms, thinking it'll solve their problems, rather than cause more so someone else can get rich.

And this goes even farther -- we're surrendering what we can even conceive of and the possible ways to even be human to tech, and AI, especially chatbots, will exacerbate this. I'm currently reading through Postman's Technopoly and it's eerily prescient. Not to mention the biases that then creep in in training data (or direct programming) that will have impacts on real people with no recourse to getting it fixed or changed, as well as the companies who'll replace their human employees as quickly as they can.

But nobody will hold these corporations responsible, nor will anyone think about the impact on society, the negative (and they're entirely negative, in my view) externalities of this. We're in for a bumpy ride, and I truly think it's only a matter of time until we start to see more people like Ted K., except, perhaps, explicitly targeting an OpenAI data centre. Or a full-on Butlerian Jihad-like movement. And, honestly, it can't come soon enough at this point.

The Luddites knew what was up. We need to truly scrutinize tech before plunging full steam ahead; sadly, capitalism has other ideas and it's going to cause us to doom ourselves (apart from the small cadre of rich who can pay others so that they can insulate themselves from it) and our planet.

It is, absolutely. Even to the level of socialisation where chatbots start to replace in-person connections.

I truly feel things are about to get a lot worse for most people (.i. Those who don't control the systems) and it won't be pretty. Sadly I don't think those who do do this stuff care one bit. The whole 'Did it because we could without asking whether we should' type problem.

For me it's a second order knock-on effect of that: desocialisation of humans and all that comes with it.

As I wrote yesterday:

> AI will claim it is socialisation, and people will believe it. Chatbots and their enthusiasts will claim they're just as meaningful and valid as in-person human socialisation, and will actually make every much, much worse.

> But as a former secondary school teacher, I can already tell you a lot of these kids don't know how to socialise. They have no concept of empathy or of there being real people out there. All their socialisation is pretty much done only through their phones, and it's not good for them at all. I was like that myself - very shut-in type guy from about 13-16 even though I did have friends and school to help, and I still find myself struggling with a lot of social cues and stuff that I should've been developing then.

I'm not looking forward to that, and the problems that it will bring to human behaviour and mental health. I have friends now who are already prey to it, which is ironic as they're the most gung-ho on AI tech too, thinking it'll solve the problem as opposed to exacerbating or masking it with a thin veneer that is nothing like the real thing. I'm seriously worried, and really leaning towards an anti-tech stance in general now.

I think it's even worse than that. AI will claim it is socialisation, and people will believe it. Chatbots and their enthusiasts will claim they're just as meaningful and valid as in-person human socialisation, and will actually make every much, much worse.

But as a former secondary school teacher, I can already tell you a lot of these kids don't know how to socialise. They have no concept of empathy or of there being real people out there. All their socialisation is pretty much done only through their phones, and it's not good for them at all. I was like that myself - very shut-in type guy from about 13-16 even though I did have friends and school to help, and I still find myself struggling with a lot of social cues and stuff that I should've been developing then.

I'd actually agree the problem is tech and capitalism. Probably should've been more clear. I'm very much a luddite (which makes this whole board quite interesting to read) with regards to tech, and I think messaging apps, even, have done a lot of harm. Yes, I can talk with my friends back home in the States (I live in Ireland) thanks to Discord, but I have some who've come to live through that thin veneer of socialisation and never get out and actually socialise. And then wonder why they feel like shit all the time. It's quite interesting to see.

I've read a lot more into anti-tech and philosophy of tech stuff recently, even some anarcho-primitivism (though I realise that's unrealistic). I actually should read Ted K.'s works to see his thought, even though I don't condone his methods.

That said, I do wonder if we can make more human-oriented tech if it wasn't for capitalist incentives. Probably, but it'd look like nothing that we have now I feel.

This is the answer, I think. What most people think of as tech is a perfect example of capitalism ruining things for the average person while a small group get rich.

Always to the disadvantage of society as a whole too.

As someone who works in and with one, likely not. Languages are inherently physical things, and they need to be passed on in the real world. If the real world still works through [insert regional majority language] that's what's get passed on due to pure economic pressure.

I haven't looked at GPT-4 yet, but for Irish the previous versions were bad. I expect 4 to be bad too simply because most the training data (Irish used online) is quite shit. But I don't see how this really changes anything about the situation on the ground with minority languages and intergenerational transmission.

> Another problem is, some people apparently hold a view that, if you make a product that works and sells, nothing else matters. Everyone will rush to earn a living around it. They feel empowered to take any position.

This has been my biggest issue around tech recently, and the whole conversation on ChatGPT and the latest generation of AI stuff just makes it a lot more obvious. They rush to make it and sell it, and that's all that matters. Societal externalities be damned. There's a lot of people way too invested in making sure stuff doesn't get discussed, all around.

1. That's a poor argument and completely irrelevant. There's a massive difference between short term and long term lets. AirBnB has more short term rentals available than long term ones in the entire country. That's a problem even if it's a 'subet' of all available properties.

2. Oh they pay a little in tax. Not the same as depriving locals of places to live near where they work affordably, and pricing all but the highest earners out of a home in general. Not to mention it pushes locals further and further out of the areas near jobs, and even then it's more and more expensive. Longer commutes, higher rates, it's all a net negative on the actual residents of a city. Nobody benefits but the entitled tourists and the rich landlords, who are insulated enough by their money to not see or care about the societal harm they cause.

AirBnB absolutely removes housing from the one rental market that matters - long term rentals. This is quite easy to see, as well as its influence on supply and thus pricing. In 2020 the number of long term let's available in Dublin doubled thanks to tourism shutting down and landlord switching. Sadly that's likely all been lost now.

Short term lets are nowhere near as important as long term ones, especially vacation rentals. They're actively harmful often, especially with the way AirBnB takes supply from the long-term lets.

I hate it, but I love having a place to live more, and giving other locals that chance. AirBnB directly ruins this for many locals trying to live in an area, since landlords can easily make more via AirBnB, removing a lot of supply from the market. It's just plain entitlement "I should give to live like a local, who cares if they can't afford housing? I'm gone in a week anyway!"

I dunno, considering that Dublin has more AirBnBs for let in a five km radius of city centre than, at one point, there were houses to let in the entire country. That's a problem, especially during a housing crisis. AirBnB is a cancer, as are the entitled tourists who feel they should live like locals at the locals' expense.

> I hear this a lot, but fail to see any hard evidence that killing short-term rentals would fix this problem. I don't doubt that short-term rentals are contributing to housing unaffordability, but there are much better solutions than banning them. Which brings me to:

The market for long term rentals doubled in Dublin during the pandemic due to lack of tourism. If you can't see how bringing all that supply (over 1000 units) back to the market won't help long-term rentals, that's on you.

AirBnB is a cancer to cities and locals, and needs to be banned for good. Tourists aren't locals, they're not entitled to live like them, especially at the locals' expense.

Absolutely. I'd actually love to hear what you think about it when you do get around to it. It's something I've been coming to terms with in general too, especially as it relates to facts and this overarching desire to know everything at all times immediately that has grown out of our modern technology ans being constantly connected. Even when it comes at a loss to the actual human connection taking place.

I've got an essay idea in mind relating this to humanity's desire to get rid of the Night, but still have a lot more reading to do on the various topics. Anyway, that's enough of my rambling. Feel free to send me an email if you want to discuss it more! It's in my profile.

I don't know if you'll see this, but I just stumbled upon Bruno Latour's On the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods, and from the Google description it sounds like it has a lot in common with what you're talking about (granted, I've only read the description and not the book itself). Maybe worth looking into!

That said, I completely agree with everything you, and the person ahead of you, have said. It completely ruins the conversation, and detaches us from the actual experiences, which I think is an inherently negative thing (if such wasn't clear from my other comments lol)

Yeah, I misread. But it is often rude and disrupting the conversation, though it can be done tactfully "Oh, I believe it was Ethan Hawke actually". It can also open up room for more conversation "No, I'm pretty sure it was Tom Cruise", where the debate of it becomes the conversation. Which is fine, and still doesn't say anything to me about the trustworthiness of the person who was telling the story. Nor does it necessarily imply they need to be fact checked on Google right now; again, it's tangential to the overarching part of the conversation. I still think using that single measure as a measure of trustworthiness is ridiculous. Especially in a conversation that's not deep.

> The storyteller merely needs to say "Yeah, some of the details are probably off" .

I feel this is an unwritten rule of conversation in general. It certainly is amongst my friend groups, even recounting stories where we were all present. It obviously wouldn't work for debates, or if you were discussing things like political policy, but most conversations don't fall into those types of things. Just sitting around shooting the shit.

I think this is somewhat dependent on where you live. I've noticed that since I've moved to Ireland it's easier to get face-to-face interaction outside the workplace. Granted, it all involves the pubs, which is another issue, but it's much more doable because people go there just to have a pint and chat. I can go down to the one closest to me and just start chatting with any of the old people there, and they're usually happy to do so. Couldn't do that in America, sadly (except in my hometown one where I already knew the people).

Exactly. And I'd argue that the vast majority of conversations are of the second type, not the first type. And if all you want/have are the first type, I think you need to experience more of the second type.

But using the "true details" (who cares if it's Ethan Hawk or Tom Cruise or whoever in Gattaca when you're discussing the relevance of the genetic engineering aspects of it) as a measure of how trustworthy someone is? That's just ridiculous to me, especially because for most conversations it doesn't matter.

Just wanted to say I couldn't agree with you more. So many people have just lost connections to nature and other people, and then wonder why they constantly feel like shit and depressed. We're going down a bad path, and American capitalism and technology "full steam ahead societal consequences be damned" attitudes are only going to make things much, much worse.

Because conversation doesn't (and shouldn't) work like that. There's plenty of asides, or casual mentions of things that are only slightly relevant or add to the point without being all that important.

Say we're talking about genetic engineering and I say something like 'This reminds me of that one movie where the one like normal guy, I think it was Tom Cruise, is trying to go into space'. It doesn't matter that I'm talking about Gattaca, or that it was Ethan Hawke and not Tom Cruise (a name just pulled out of the hat) and maybe even messing up plot details, and stopping to look it up just completely ruins the flow and break conversation.

I had this happen in person last week when someone mentioned Irish had a word for a three month period, but nobody could remember it. Several people went to their phone dictionaries immediately and it just stopped the conversation (and none were able to find it, either).

So there's lots of times we bring stuff up just as an aside or to add a little more flavour without it being important in conversation. I'd say that's hoe conversation should work not just 'Here's my point and all the facts that back it up.' There's no flow there, it becomes more like a debate or presentation, not a conversation. And if people are curious or it really was important, you can always look it up and send it later, but you'll often find nobody is that curious and it isn't that important.

I'm roughly the same. All I want is a phone that lets me play Spotify, tracks my steps during the day/gps on runs, and lets me use messaging apps (Telegram, WhatsApp) along with SMS and call. Really need nothing else on it (and am starting to get that way). Maybe a smart watch is the best option, but I really don't like the design of most of them, and prefer my old school kinetic powered watch.

> Funny, in most my friends groups someone checks their phone and I'm glad they do

I hate it, it just completely disrupts the conversation, as OP said.

> Why would we be talking about this if we didn't care about the truth of it?

Because often it doesn't matter. The truth of who plays in a movie really doesn't matter as much as people think it does, even when discussing the movie itself. And if it's not important enough to remember, I say it definitely doesn't matter as much as whatever else was going on in the conversation surrounding it.

And I find I remember next to nothing I read in digital books, even eink books, whereas I can constantly recall stuff from physical books I've read. Plus, the act of phyiscally reading it does something, and I can generally remember roughly where I found something without need for a search.

Physical books just for me are a no brainer when I can get them. They're orders of magnitude better than anything digital for research, even if it isn't as 'efficient' and time gets 'wasted' (I'd also put forth an argument it isn't necessarily wasted).