We asked the machine to read a recent post:
Presumably the more orthodox style of the LLM-generated tone will be more friendly to the new reader.
The forwarded message you’ve provided covers multiple themes and seems to discuss the evolving capabilities and limitations of AI in various contexts—from reading emails and providing answers, to acting as surrogates in conversations, to commenting on geopolitical crises. The style is fragmented and cryptic, which may be intentional to provoke thought or may represent an internal brainstorming session.
- AI Surrogates: The concept of having an AI ‘surrogate’ to handle tedious or repetitive interactions is interesting but fraught with ethical and practical complexities. For example, the article mentions that the word “surrogate” has overtones (言外之意), and the same goes for “doppleganger” and “digital twin.”
- AI and Email: There’s mention of an AI system that reads emails and could potentially answer questions about the people involved. While such technology would raise privacy concerns, it’s a plausible extension of current email sorting algorithms.
- AI in the Cloud vs Local Machine: The message points out that if AI systems talk to each other in the cloud, there’s potential for “sloppy data scoping,” meaning poor data management practices that could compromise privacy or security. On the other hand, local machine-based AI would have limitations on interoperability due to an ‘air gap,’ essentially a lack of network connection that ensures security.
- AI and Moral Judgments: One of the more provocative points is that AI could, theoretically, write convincingly about any agenda without moral judgment. This poses questions about the ethical responsibilities of such systems.
- AI’s Role in Society: The article suggests that no matter how advanced, AI can’t solve deeply entrenched societal issues. Whether it’s the crisis in the U.S. House or the situation in Palestine, the text argues that adding more intelligence won’t provide solutions.
- Role of Anthropomorphism: The mention of the “gecko-bot” is noteworthy, as it suggests that people may prefer relatable, anthropomorphic interfaces to abstract, mechanical ones. This ties into the ongoing debate about AI “alignment” and whether the priorities of AI can ever be made to align with human values.
- Tech Celebrities: The text briefly dives into the types of people one might find on social networks, contrasting personal friends with celebrities and “tech celebrities,” particularly in the context of San Francisco (旧金山).
- Language and Terminology: The writer argues against calling these AI entities “bots,” suggesting “toons” instead to underline their lack of ultimate authority or moral agency.
In summary, the article raises several thought-provoking questions and considerations around the limitations and potential dangers of AI, though it does so in a somewhat disjointed manner.
/green hopefully for the last time, we are presenting the machine‘s take unedited.
It makes a few predictable errors. In particular, it over-emphasizes the meaning of throw-away aside comments.
/orange well, actually, perhaps the machine is correct, and LONDON is confusing readers with throw-away aside comments.
When the machine declares a concept to be “interesting”, does it think it interesting, or does it think that LONDON finds it interesting?
The concept of “AI surrogates” is interesting for several reasons:
- Communication Efficiency: AI surrogates could handle routine or tedious interactions, allowing humans to focus on more complex or meaningful tasks.
- Personalization: If developed sufficiently, these surrogates could emulate an individual’s communication style, preferences, and even their decision-making processes, thus offering a highly personalized experience to anyone interacting with them.
- Ethical Implications: Using AI as a stand-in for human interaction poses ethical questions. Is it deceptive? Could it lead to an erosion of genuine human connection?
- Data Privacy: Such a surrogate would need access to a wealth of personal data to function effectively. This raises concerns about data security and privacy.
- Social Impacts: If widespread, could the use of AI surrogates fundamentally alter how we communicate or form relationships? Would we even know if we are interacting with a human or an AI?
- Legal Concerns: If an AI surrogate makes a decision or statement on behalf of a person, who is legally responsible for that action or statement?
- Psychological Aspects: Could reliance on AI surrogates affect our mental health? For example, could it result in reduced emotional intelligence due to decreased human-to-human interaction?
- Economic Impacts: Depending on their capabilities, AI surrogates could potentially replace human roles in certain job sectors, causing economic shifts.
- Technology Limitations: Current AI is not yet advanced enough to fully understand human emotions, nuance, and context. How close can a surrogate come to replicating a real human’s thoughts and feelings?
These aspects make the concept of AI surrogates a rich area for exploration, both in technological development and in discussions about ethics, social impact, and legality.
One more time. This time, let’s feed it the best line: 《 don’t call them bots, call them toons 》.
The writer’s suggestion to refer to AI entities as “toons” rather than “bots” is a deliberate attempt to shape perception and expectations about the role and capabilities of AI in society. Here’s why this is noteworthy:
- Semantic Impact: Language influences how we perceive things. The term “bot” may carry connotations of automation and functionality, which might lead people to overestimate an AI’s capabilities. In contrast, “toon” evokes imagery of cartoons or fictional characters, which are clearly not real and not authoritative.
- Moral Agency: By calling them “toons,” the writer emphasizes that these AI entities do not have moral or ethical agency. This could serve as a constant reminder to users to not impute moral decisions or ethical judgments to these machines.
- Managing Expectations: Referring to them as “toons” can help in managing public expectations. It makes it clear that while these entities can perform certain tasks, they are not all-powerful, nor are they capable of making nuanced human-like decisions.
- Human Oversimplification: There’s a tendency to anthropomorphize (赋予人性) AI entities, attributing human qualities to them. This can be misleading and potentially dangerous if it leads to over-reliance on AI for tasks that require human judgment. The term “toons” can mitigate this by stressing the fictional, limited nature of these entities.
- Legal Implications: The term can also have legal benefits. If an AI entity is clearly labeled as a “toon,” it may be easier to establish that it shouldn’t be treated as a legal entity responsible for its actions, thereby directing accountability toward the humans who created or operate it.
- Public Discourse: Introducing a new term like “toons” can influence public discourse, steering conversations away from unrealistic hopes or fears about AI and toward a more balanced understanding of its limitations and potential uses.
- Ethical Design: By advocating for a term that downplays the authority of AI, the writer may also be implicitly calling for ethical design principles that prevent AI from being granted undue power or responsibility in decision-making processes.
- Psychological Distance: The name “toon” might instill a level of psychological distance between humans and AI, reducing the chances of emotional attachment and thereby reinforcing the idea that these are tools rather than companions or authorities.
- Cultural Context: Finally, the effectiveness of this semantic shift would likely depend on cultural factors. In some cultures, cartoons (or “toons”) may not be seen as trivial or lacking in authority, which could complicate the intended messaging.
Overall, the writer’s suggestion to switch terminology from “bots” to “toons” is a nuanced approach to guide how society should engage with and think about AI, emphasizing their limitations and lack of human-like qualities.
the Gospel According to Shragafeivel 