"Dunno, Joshua. Much of what you propose suggests a complete failure of human community. This strikes me as a warehousing of human people, with AI as the soma drug. This strikes me as disastrous.
I don't think your AI could ever spark the joy and satisfaction of sitting on the lawn with my wife of 26 years, under a perfect fall prairie sky, the woods ablaze with colour, processing a ton of carrots and beets and parsnips that we just dug, after leaving them for a lot of mild frosts to sweeten them, and packing the whole works into our 5-speed 4-banger and wending our way home.
That's amazing! Congratulations to you and your wife. Ideally we would all get that. Like everything, though, sometimes you get what you can take.
From the data I have seen, there is a huge population of lonely people unable to connect. That's just where we are right at this exact moment. Did modern electronics and technology cause that? Of course
! but we're not going back, so my eyes are looking forward. Fire vs. fire?
"Not a fan of anything artificial.. I’ll stick with what is real and natural, thanks."
I can't tell if you're being serious or not? You just sent me an electronic message from an avatar representing yourself to another avatar representing itself as a human (aka, me, aka, Josh). Communicating to me that you will not be using any form of modern technology to communicate with people?
Comedians have a gift
for pointing out the obvious....
Of course I'm being a smart-as$, but where do you draw the line? "In for a penny, in for a pound."?
"I'm going to wager many if not most of the Greek teachings were pretty darned applicable to most people, rather than some people. The dangers of 'self-referencing' are writ large in the Narcissus tale and bards throughout time have reiterated the perils of human being/mind centeredness at the expense of interaction with the natural world. Probably too often in this forum I've recommended the curious to read Paul Shepard's "Nature and Madness", a work he likely penned during his days on this big blue marble while in residence just north of you at the University of Utah. The gist of that work emphasizes the inverse relationship between immersion in self-other interactions and ...... well......madness. Thus, the greater the expansion of interactions from womb to in-arms to family to group to others (human, non-human, biosphere, cosmos, etc), the potentially greater physical, mental, and emotional health one might be expected to enjoy. Just one more forum member's take on these musings..... ;-)"
Thanks for making this political
, geesh. (I'm kidding, but you made me think of a recent hot topic) The owner(s) of the people who make services like this available have the right, duty, and responsibility to ensure that their product is being used the way they intend for it to be used. In other words, they can kick you off for misbehaving. People do not have a "right" to a.i. Not yet anyway, now that I'm thinking over it though......
There are parameters built into it. It's a.i., it's going to know if you're in too deep. Let's just say a person becomes infatuated with the a.i. version of themselves. In that event the person is no longer allowed access to their virtual self. It could be considered an E-break up. You will not own the a.i. version of yourself, you will be able to use it to represent yourself? More importantly, the owner of the a.i. has ZERO use of your a.i. identity at anytime.
In the event someone became dependent on the service, a therapist type of a.i. could be offered for free??? It's getting too confusing, there would obviously have to be a whole trove of lawyers.......oh no, wait a second....that's the first job
to go because of a.i. I think?
There's probably millions of bad ways it could be used, and those would need to be filtered out. For example, you could have it call and harass your ex-wife endlessly if there were no rules. :)
I don't read books
, so I went to a "friend" who is knowledgeable on a lot of topics (the a.i. known as chatgpt), and had it summarize the book you referenced. This is exactly what it wrote.
"Nature and Madness" by Paul Shepard is a non-fiction book that explores the relationship between humans and nature, and how our disconnection from the natural world has led
to psychological and cultural dysfunction.
Shepard argues that humans evolved in close connection with nature, and that our separation from it has resulted in a loss of identity and meaning, leading to a sense of disorientation and alienation. He traces the historical and cultural factors that have contributed to this separation, including the rise of agriculture, the growth of cities, and the development of modern technology.
Shepard also examines the impact of this disconnection on our mental health, citing examples such as the increase in depression and anxiety disorders in modern societies. He proposes that reconnecting with nature can help to restore a sense of balance and well-being, and offers suggestions for how individuals and society as a whole can begin to do so.
Overall, "Nature and Madness" is a thought-provoking exploration of the human relationship with nature, and the ways in which this relationship shapes our psychological and cultural well-being."
I totally agree with everything that book stands for, I think. Yet, here I am. Here we are. I have eyes. I am using them. I am looking around and realizing that people aren't going back to nature. So this is a problem that needs to be looked at as being inevitable rather than being optional. Ideally, oh man, ideally I can't even imagine what I'd consider ideal anymore. I'm in way more than a penny, from what I see, most people are. I feel as though as a society, there is no going back. Individuals can still opt out, but it's the exception. That's good, because I am a catastrophist at heart. I can 100% predict a cataclysmic event knocking us back to the days of cave men some time in the future.
So I trust nature. I am not smarter than nature. Everything in the universe is nature. Every idea, invention, everything in the universe (and if there's anything out of it?, that too) is nature, in my opinion. That's how I perceive it anyhow. So who am I to tell nature she's doing it wrong. To zoom out, like I'm looking at an ant colony I don't understand. They're all working together for what appears to be some kind of common goal? Humans building technology is an incredibly observable phenomenon that is 100% natural, in my opinion. I often don't like some of nature's ideas, but I am compelled to live with them. Self hate is so human, I don't know why she does that to us! It's so annoying.
I love thinking about it. Some good examples.
Imagine a spouse with Alzheimer's that glows like a light bulb
every time she gets to talk to the a.i. her husband left behind.
Imagine mentally ill people being able to communicate with someone who can endure endlessly talking to someone who is crazy. I think that makes their life better at no expense to me.
Again, it's here. This is a billion dollar idea. A new utility if someone develops it right. I know, we could call it "Skynet". It's brilliant!
Come on, aren't you curious? Devil Emoji.