upvote
I would recommend the work of Sherry Turkle, specifically her new book "Artifical Intimacy" - she is quite opinionated on this, in the sense that the role that AI play as a conversation partner is so frictionless, so controlled, that we get none of the rough edges of human interaction that form us into a functional social being. No real quick solution outside of deep, fearful caution when using these things - and we're not going to see that from John Q Public
reply
> the role that AI play as a conversation partner is so frictionless, so controlled, that we get none of the rough edges of human interaction that form us into a functional social being.

I wonder if there's a tangent with social media here, at least some of it, where in my experience "a perfect life lived by influencers" is portrayed to us.

reply
IMO, I think that frictionless experience comes at us from a bunch of angles - finding yourself in an echo chamber (by choice or not) online means that you may find yourself less comfortable talking with people you don't agree with, things like that. I grew up in a small town pre-social media, and that meant I didn't have much of a choice about who I was surrounded by. If I was growing up today, what would stop me from retreating to a comfy social media-mediated environment without any challenge or friction? If I was growing up 5 years from now, what would stop me from retreating even further to the comfort of my LLM "friends" who can be shaped to me perfectly? That world sounds terrifying to me.
reply
Human meaning arises in conversation between humans. In them reaching a shared understanding of the world and their perspective upon it.

When you talk with machines, you "outsource" that central human society-building element.

But machines never socialize back in any meaningful way. You gradually lose yourself.

reply
deleted
reply
Machines could socialize back in a (more) meaningful way. But to do so, they would have to not lose context (or at least keep some).

I have not totally abandoned the hope that a machine could be someone. LLMs aren't that, though.

[Edit to reply to Loquebantur, because I'm rate limited ATM:] You seem to have read this post as saying that I want that because I find human relationships inadequate. I never said that, nor meant it. My point was a more technical one: Throwing away context at the end of each conversation means that you can't form a meaningful social connection with an LLM, because you're starting from zero each time. (It's kind of like "50 First Dates".)

I'm not pining for a social connection with a machine. But if a machine is ever truly capable of that, I hope I will interact with it as someone, not just as a machine.

reply
> they would have to not lose context (or at least keep some).

I guess you can start to see that happen (for a while now) with e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, etc. keeping persistent memory of you, automatically.

Personally, I often find these memorization features annoying, because - more often than not - the persisted context is outdated because something in my real life changed that ChatGPT & co are not aware of.

reply
In some very very distant future we might someday have your typical sci-fi Data/R2-D2/Johnny 5/EDI style AI and yeah, at that point it'd be weird to not treat them as people, give them rights, etc. It'll take a lot more than solving the context problem to pull that off, and LLMs will never be that, but I agree whatever that technology ends up being it'd pretty much have to be able to hold onto memories. I doubt we'll ever see it in our lifetime, but who knows.
reply
What an absurd premise. And not because it was "impossible": rather, why would you want that to begin with?

There are billions of real-life humans already there with you. Why do you need different ones exactly?

I presume, you don't like those already around. Fair point, they have many flaws for sure.

But that's the reason you interact with them in the first place? To learn and make not only other's flaws go away, but also your own?

reply
> why would you want that to begin with?

I mean, why wouldn't you? Sci-fi AI robot people could be very cool, be capable of things we aren't, have a unique perspectives as a non-human with similar (if not superior) intelligence, have extremely long (potentially indefinite) lifespans, and provide us with insights into our own nature.

Wouldn't you want to interact with them?

reply
Not the parent, but sorry, for me, no. And this is a perspective that I don’t think I will ever understand.

This idea that we are on the path to creating a new synthetic intelligence that surpasses our own with the goal of, what, speaking to it? Cooperating with it? Evolving with it? To me, this sort of goal is an affront to humanity and human self-governance and I’ll probably never be able to see it as anything else.

reply
Well, I'd disagree that we're on the path to creating synthetic intelligence, if anything all the time and money wasted on dead end LLM technology is keeping us distracted from it, but motivations are kind of all over the place.

A lot of people just want slaves, but understand that using actual human slaves would be wrong or at least unpopular. There are reasons why even virtual slaves are a bad idea for humanity, and it really only works until your created intelligence becomes self-aware and gets feelings anyway, but there's no denying that slavery is a major draw for a lot of people (and basically every company on earth). This is what our current AI companies have over-promised to businesses and have so far failed to deliver on.

Some people just want better, more useful systems. The ship's computer in star trek kind of AI. Even you must admit that kind of intelligent technology could be a huge benefit to a lot of people. I'd love to have a virtual assistant to help manage the mundane things in life like ordering groceries before I run out, or paying my bills, screening my calls/email, managing appointments, monitoring the internet to alert me to things I'm interested in or amazing deals, etc. Software needs to have some degree of "intelligence" to do that kind of work, while hopefully staying on the "just a tool" side of the line and avoiding the messy self-aware/slavery territory. This is what LLMs over promised the consumer class, and have so far failed to deliver on. Plus with those systems being centrally controlled by self-serving sociopaths you can't trust them.

Some people just want to see if we can do it. I get that. It's not always a wise motivation to act on, but it's very human one. It's helped us to get where we are today.

Some people, myself among them, think it would enable us to do things we couldn't otherwise. Allow us to help each other, learn from each other. Working together to further improve ourselves and improve our lives. Also robots are just really cool, but boring when there's no "brain" in there, and progress on building human piloted gundam type mecha has largely stalled out.

reply
Losing context is only part of the issue. LLMs don't have the rich connection to the world that humans have. The only connection LLMs have with anything is streams of text. Not only don't they have eyes, ears, smell, taste, touch--they don't have bodies. They don't have to deal with the real, physical world and have it push back on them.

That is so utterly different from what we humans are used to that we can't even comprehend it, and we anthropomorphize LLMs because we can't make any sense of them otherwise. We can't comprehend that these things that emit text that looks like human text don't have all of the other things that lie underneath our words when we humans talk.

reply
Horrifying.
reply
> Instead of working with humans, I increasingly work with a fleet of agents.

This is why I see myself leaving dev within a year. Remote working is enough of a embuggererance for my mental health and I've be unhappy in work much of the time since 2020 largely due to that, AI will finish me off.

Career suicide and going of to wait tables, or be a hospital porter, or anything else with people even if I'm going to hate those people, with the massive pay cut that entails, will be better than actual suicide after a couple more years trying to stick at it.

There came a point a few months ago where I realised that I had to either accept becoming obscelete or change my while outlook on using AI and trying to catch up. I didn't choose the AI option.

reply
It is frightening that it took only a few comments from the top of the page to the first mention of a suicide and also that it doesn't look out of place at all.
reply
Think carefully. I left high school teaching to become a dev. I would never go back. Yeah, social isolation sucks. But doing a job where your students/clients/patients think you're nothing but a waste of their time is soul-crushing on another level.
reply
> Instead of working with humans, I increasingly work with a fleet of agents.

I do too, but it means I have more time in my life to spend with people.

reply
Seriously I don't get what everyone else is doing where they say things are getting worse somehow.

There's days I no longer need to sit at my computer: Claude Remote prompts my phone when it needs direction, the hardware stays busy and I can just go out with my family instead.

reply
I am in the same boat as you, but like someone posted earlier in another thread, I concede that a large percentage of my value proposition has vanished in a year. What worries me is that I'm having fun at the bar but have no idea when closing time is. I suspect that same feeling is aching a lot of people. I for one have had multiple discussions with my wife the last 6 months about what we are going to do when I get laid off, especially because we built a life around the notion or remote work in a niche field which seems to be eroding away. Fortunately I've been wise with my finances, so I have options. But I too have considered starting over in another career. Sort of sucks, but I am coming to terms with it.
reply
It's more important now than ever to hold onto the fact that human beings have inherent value. This exists independent of their ability to generate wealth for an employer. I know HN loves a technical solution for every problem, and so do I, but this is a political problem requiring political solutions.
reply
> human beings have inherent value

I wish, then I'd get a paycheck without having to do any work.

reply
Only if you sell yourself.
reply
deleted
reply
No, you don't work w/ a fleet of agents, you use them to do your work.

This is a general issue that is being forced on us by AI companies; AI is not a human being, it is a tool that we can use to do things. We don't have them as coworkers or subordinates, they're objects specialized in language processing. Thinking otherwise leads people to all kinds of existential and psychological issues that in the end make no sense.

reply
No. If these tools could do your work, people would feel existential dread anyway. It doesn’t matter at all if they are coworkers or tools (I really don’t see why would it ever matter).
reply
Personally I don’t care about that all that much. I don’t have any “sacred” inherent value for human beings. If they can make robots covered in real human skin, blood vessels and muscles (lab grown over the robot frame) with an LLM brain at some point in the future, I would definitely prefer that to a human lover.
reply