Submitted by izumi3682 t3_106e70m in Futurology
Comments
Rikolan t1_j3gwnt1 wrote
Literally did that yesterday with ChatGPT. Used it as tech support for changing my display refresh rate via a shortcut command. It kept apologising and offering different solutions, not losing its temper once. 10/10 would use it over a real person.
SnooPuppers1978 t1_j3i9ymx wrote
So much easier to communicate without having to worry about smalltalk, being accidentally rude etc.
CrypticResponseMan1 t1_j3j34dd wrote
I must be an AI, because I don’t lose my patience with people unless they lose theirs. It’s about respect, really
rixtil41 t1_j3khg68 wrote
which is good but it would be better to not rely on your patience as it's not unlimited.
CrypticResponseMan1 t1_j3ksczn wrote
Mine is, for people who have self-control. I tolerate the tolerant but I am intolerant of the intolerant, as it should be.
JeremiahBoogle t1_j3ku82q wrote
Some people are naturally more patient than others. Genetic, upbringing, I don't know, but there are differences, I don't think you can say its just respect.
CrypticResponseMan1 t1_j3lxa1h wrote
Fair. It makes sense
bunnnythor t1_j3kwnjy wrote
That’s because we know that no matter how exhausting remaining patient and unruffled can be at times, it pales in comparison to the utter enervation that occurs after turning yourself and everyone around you into a drama llama, followed by attempting to mitigate all the knock-on consequences that come in the wake. A brouhaha like that can knock you into total weariness for a month.
TheUnforgivenII t1_j3kpjjd wrote
Go work retail for a month
CrypticResponseMan1 t1_j3lxd0i wrote
I’m in a worse field 🤣
rixtil41 t1_j3mfrf2 wrote
What feild is that ?
khamelean t1_j3hk9z6 wrote
I would gladly give up the poetry of Silvia Plath, the art of Van Gogh and the music of Kurt Cobain if it would mean that they could have lived lives free of mental illness. What kind of monster would put another human being through that for the sake of entertaining an audience…
marklondon66 t1_j3i9dzg wrote
I know I do.
McDs going kiosk has improved my quality of life. I prefer the self-checkout lanes where available. Kiosk check-in rules at airports.
[deleted] t1_j3g9c9v wrote
[deleted]
LegendaryPlayboy t1_j3goqws wrote
In less than 15 years, probably 20, you should be able to get an artificial wife. Artificial wombs that works with your semen. Yes. Sometimes, there is nothing left to fix when people are broken inside and have traumatic past.
Test19s t1_j3hq7xk wrote
Americans of the future: “I’m 1/4 Polish, 1/2 Hungarian, and 1/4 robot. Beep boop.”
MetalJacket23 t1_j3gqnvl wrote
I don't think that would be a good idea. The human connection is what makes us humans. I know some feelings might be do hurtful to experience, but they are what they are. You can't sing a great piano song without all the notes written on that sheet of paper. Some might be low, some might be high. But that is life, a bunch of high and low notes that togheter make a beautiful play.
Julie_mrrea t1_j3h0ksp wrote
sshh we are in place where bunch of folks think AI already surpassed humans in artistic endeavors. But omit the fact that it just glues existing human work ad infinitum and when confronted with reality they would say "oh but human art works the same" lol no, it doesn't, good artist creates their own unique style and it isn't just a mix of existing ones lol. Not to mention humans actually know what words, feeling, experiences mean and thousands of other things happening in real world to draw upon.
That's why even the lowest of art hentai - artists or rather journeymen create works that are actually arousing. AI cannot do it yet or ever, not in the current implementation. Not until it understands what hot, sexually arousing means.
When you see a good hentai "art" you peer through the brain of the artist. You ask questions: Who draw this? Is that person gay or bi? What motivated them to draw this? What do they find arousing? What are their sexual life experiences? What is their mood?
You can answer these questions just looking at the art.
It is obvious you cannot do the same with AI art. It is cold, it is empty in comparison. Not until an AI is an actual general artificial intelligence with it's own personality, experiences, memories.
No offense to the mathheads but we humanistic people know AI is lightyears still from catering to our senses. Don't get me wrong it is super impressive but overhyped right now.
It is a first attempt and got really far, unexpectedly far but it is equally far from real art and it isn't just a matter of iteration but rather would require simulating a single artistic entity. Basically walking general AI, android. Hyperion Dan Simmons John Keats poet anyone? That's the goal here so we are talking some years still.
[deleted] t1_j3hhreq wrote
[deleted]
Julie_mrrea t1_j3jqxhc wrote
I personally can pin point with high accuracy gender of the creator and sexuality. Duh i know because I am into shit from women pov and lebian/bi myself. That's kinda the point of whole subreddit r/chickflixxx
Generally though women adult content creators focus their attention to faces with very very characteristic differences often and men boobs and body. Also women private parts drawn by women are more realistic which makes sense because that's such a private thing having it or not changes our psyche and how we draw it.
In other words whether I want it or not I subconsciously think about these things when looking at any kind of 'art'.
But there's way more the pose, the pleasure it all marks characteristic difference between male and female drawings. Male drawn faces are often kind of silly and overexaggerated and when female artists tries to do it the same it gives it playful instead of silly look. You see them capturing the real female orgasm emotion simply because they know the experience.
I could write and write on this actually damn sorry for rambling.
It is fascinating topic though and having both semi male and full female brain rewired with hormones at some point in my life I know many things that normal people cannot. I know how female orgasm feels and male orgasm feels. I know how women look at sex and how men look at sex. I should rather say estrogen powered brains vs testosterone powered brains to be more true though but that would really make this comment unreadable mess. And it is breaching another highly interesting topic that I am willing to drown someone in - the concept of gender
I am clearly autistic am i not ?
Edit: honestly training ai to automate and find porn tailored for me would be kinda interesting
Julie_mrrea t1_j3igt61 wrote
Well apparently some people are... different than others, interesting, very interesting. I am glad you enjoy simple things then. But as somewhat of an artistic soul myself ai stuff is not even close.
Then theres ethical aspect of basically stealing people art and profiting off it.
Looks like really not a lot of people can appreciate art stuff on my level that's honestly the most interesting takeaway from this discussion for me. Perhaps i should actually draw or paint instead of coding.
Then theres whole composition aspect to scene, perfect balance, which only humans can truly nail down looking at ai art so far, it's always off. Colours, reflections well everything lacks personality. Message of the scene that's the biggest thing that's just kinda void left there.
I really should go explore that part of myself yay I thought everyone can spot these things.
Because when you mash things together shit is lost in the process, intention is lost. Until AI can truly understand these concepts it will be really void like so far stuff I checked out
MetalJacket23 t1_j3h6txv wrote
Thank you ! Your words are....comforting.
Mudcat-69 t1_j3ie6x8 wrote
Have you met people? People are the absolute worst!
bbro81 t1_j3h8867 wrote
Except for the crappy phone robots. I don’t think anyone prefers them.
LordOfDorkness42 t1_j3lkp4s wrote
Isn't that kinda like saying: "I really like transport, but don't think anybody prefers a rusty Lada over a rickshaw," though?
Like, we're not exactly talking cutting edge or usually even proper maintenance with the phone-bots.
bbro81 t1_j3mwwoy wrote
Fair point, my comment was more tongue in cheek but I see what you are saying.
izumi3682 OP t1_j3g5aqy wrote
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.
From the article.
>This phenomenon — of some people preferring robots (in this case, an apparently-neutral robot over an opinionated human) becomes more important as we enter an era of AI-enabled robots. And it may partly explain why AI-enabled robots enjoy public support despite warning from prominent figures ranging from Henry Kissinger to former Google boss Eric Schmidt about the risks of unfettered AI. If someone suspects that opinionated-humans in authority intend to do them or their family harm, then that person will probably prefer an apparently neutral, AI-enabled robot over an obviously bigoted human.
And this truly telling finish...
>If any one thing is clear, it is that we are intellectually unprepared for both this era and the debate that it will spur.
People do not have a clue what is coming. But they will all know about the year 2025 when true, albeit limited AGI comes into existence. But that AGI will not stay limited for long. By the year 2028 it will quite complex indeed. And once that happens ASI is very close to realization. And that would constitute a TS. I place it about the year 2029, give or take two years.
Absolutely around the mid decade there will be legislation attempting to roll back the power of AI, but it will be far too little, far too late. In fact right now today, the Europeans are attempting legislation to control the development of AI. Sorry, that cat is already out the bag.
I hope it all goes well for us. I think it will.
Tangentially related. This is about how humans will come to prefer AI "creativity" to that of "inferior" humans.
And that leads me to another consideration. What happens when we remove mental illness and psychiatric disorders from the the world? Have you ever read a poem by Sylvia Plath? Have you ever remarked on the unusual beauty of a Van Gogh painting. Did you like the band "Nirvana", or Amy Winehouse? It is that kind of "defect" in human cognition that brings about the transcendent forms of art that evokes such an amazing resonance in us, the observer or listener. The same thing that makes a human crazier than a shit-house rat, is also the same thing that makes that human a genius. Especially an expressive genius.
The 100K question then is, will we miss that? Do we really want to give it up? Mental illness and psychiatric disorders hurt. I imagine everyone wants to take those agonies away. Right?
LegendaryPlayboy t1_j3gollf wrote
People don't have a clue what is coming.
izumi3682 OP t1_j3hhp7n wrote
Well, I mostly meant thems outside of rslashfuturology. But since you offer. I do have a few questions.
What year will prices for everything drop precipitously as a "post-scarcity" economy takes hold in the USA? Alternatively, when will UBI be available in the USA?
What year will the first AI generated hit alt-rock song come to be. By this I mean that no humans are involved in any of the production to include composition, voice(s) and instrumentals. Think a "Chatgpt" to make music on demand.
What year will humans no longer go to flight school, medical school or law school, because the ARA, that is computing derived AI, robotics and automation, will be able to do it all. Consider this.
What year will nuclear fusion technology enter the grid? Did you know that we just launched a satellite to investigate the probability that we can exploit solar energy from space? What year will humanity become a "type 1" Kardashev civilization? Meaning, all necessary energy is derived from the sun or from the engine of stars.
What year will the first human dedicated aging reversal technology become available for humans? And an ancillary question to that. Who determines who gets aging reversal technology? Will only the rich live forever? Will the nursing homes be filled with those who cannot afford aging reversal technologies. And how will that go over with the mewling mass of humanity (Read: Me)
What do you think GPT-4 is going to bring to the table for humanity? It comes out early this year you know.
And what year do you believe a "technological singularity" will occur? My answer is all of these with the exception of the schooling for certain professions, will occur before the year 2030. Most between 2026 and 2028. The schooling may continue as late as 2035, but then it too will be gone. Why do you need a doctor, a lawyer or a flight school when the ARA does it all. And around the year 2035, all humans will be able to "do it all".
I think I got a clue what is coming. What do you think of this?
Ask me anything! ;)
idranh t1_j3izdwx wrote
>What year will prices for everything drop precipitously as a "post-scarcity" economy takes hold in the USA? Alternatively, when will UBI be available in the USA?
Tony Seba and his think tank RethinkX believe this will happen by the end of the decade at the earliest and the middle of the next decade at the latest. It seems fantastical and far too close, but they understand exponential growth and they have a history of being right. And all of this doesn't take AGI or transformative AI into consideration. Things are about to get crazy.
LegendaryPlayboy t1_j3hj8kw wrote
Ask me anything... that is at least a bit futuristic to intriguing me. These questions are obsolete to me.
izumi3682 OP t1_j3hk992 wrote
>that is at least a bit futuristic to intriguing me. These questions are obsolete to me.
I do not understand what you are saying. Your sentences do not make sense to me. I ask you, is English your first language?
Test19s t1_j3hqe2c wrote
The competition between robots and humans for inherently scarce or finite resources could get ugly.
izumi3682 OP t1_j3kamhe wrote
You changed your response mr legends. Unfortunately for you, all reddit responses go to my email. So I have your original response, before you changed it.
u/izumi3682
u/LegendaryPlayboy replied to your comment in r/Futurology · u/LegendaryPlayboy · 1 votes People don't have a clue what is coming...? Ask me anything.
hummingbird_mywill t1_j3m6usa wrote
I don’t think this article is particularly well reasoned. He takes three very different scenarios and tries to weave them into one thesis, when in fact only one of those scenarios is relevant to his point and the data doesn’t support it.
His theory is that people prefer robots over humans because they might be “opinionated.” To support this he cites his anecdote about empty human cash registers and line ups to use the self-checkout, and a woman says she likes self-checkout so she won’t be judged by the cashier. Yet the author cites a source that only 1/3 people prefer self-checkout to a cashier, so this point doesn’t support his thesis.
He cites preference of speed cameras over cops and even acknowledges the real danger people have interacting with police… reducing this to fear of interacting with an “opinionated” person is disingenuous and frankly a little offensive. Does not support the thesis.
He cites preference for autonomous AI military pilots who are not afraid to “die.” Obviously this is a massive military advancement, both strategically and simply preserving human life. Nothing to do with the thesis of “opinionated” people.
Self-driving cars versus cabbies/Uber eliminates real risk of sexual assault. Not relevant to the thesis. There might be something there for people who simply like having the freedom to choose the music/podcast, but we have no data for that.
As for the comment about mental disorders and creativity… yes I am bipolar and yes we are tremendously creative, thank you thank you. Unfortunately we die prematurely in vast numbers on account of our disorder if it’s untreated. However, our disorder makes us quite attractive in the early days and thus we tend to procreate before our disorder really takes over and ruins lives and bipolar stays in the gene pool.
What are you implying when you say eliminate mental illness/mental disorder? This is a really interesting discussion that’s pretty unrelated to the article you posted but I would need more defining. To be clear, no one has a f**king clue what causes bipolar most of the time. It is guesswork to treat the symptoms, which are what define the presence of the disorder or not. The underlying causes are unknown, so it’s not a matter of hitting a gene switch.
Are we talking eugenics? Evil robot overloads massacring us? Or just treated and more healthy? Given that we procreate, how is it going to be eliminated?
Second last point, a person can remain mentally disordered and be not mentally ill. My disorder is very well managed and I am no more “ill” than maybe someone with a temper. I am currently not as prolific/productive in art or academics now as I was when I was ill and untreated, however I would be dead by now if I wasn’t treated so every year it continues to pay off for society. My quality of life is also better (obviously, I’m alive).
Finally, if a cure to mental disorder was an option, it’s not up to society to decide whether or not it’s “worth it” to take or not, pitting their productivity against their life. It’s a decision for the disordered people to make. I know most would take it. Would it be a bummer for the world to not have “the Nutcracker” and other works? Sure. But Tchaikovsky was also utterly miserable 10/12 months of the year and if there was a cure for his disorder then who are we to deny it? And we don’t know that he couldn’t write it while healthy.
izumi3682 OP t1_j3oyocz wrote
Well, my point is that we are going to remove mental illness and psychiatric disorders from the world. Consider those who are born deaf. Or those who are born with Down's Syndrome. We are also going to remove pretty much any kind of pathological or congenital condition from the human race. And in less than 20 years, if that, to boot.
So there are those, and they are significant percentage, of people who are congenitally deaf or have Down's Syndrome that believe that they are perfectly happy and normal people. That what they experience is not any kind of a defect at all. Here is the problem with that. It doesn't matter. Technology will come into existence, that will eliminate such pathology from the human race. Whether these communities want to accept such treatment is on them.
I saw something that made me almost laugh out loud in a "you've got to be kidding me!", laugh. There is this movie, it's called "The Immortals" "Eternals" I think. In this movie, Hollywood has overlaid certain kinds of thinking that is popular in US society today. Specifically, diversity and inclusion. I mean I'm all on board with that. But there was one character that just made me laugh out loud. It was an "immortal" "Eternal" who apparently came into existence deaf/mute. Really? An immortal realized deaf/mute? I think we've jumped the shark here.
No sir, here is what is actually coming down the pike. And super soon to boot.
Also one of the points that I was trying to make in my submission statement is that the AI is going to transcend all of human creativity. It's already begun. Wait until the first AI made movies are produced within minutes from a prompt by a human. Or an AI produced "alt-rock" song is produced in seconds by a prompt from a human. People just tell the machine what they want, and the machine delivers it. Whither human artists?
izumi3682 OP t1_j69cjaj wrote
I am downvoted, but with no comment. What did I write here that you don't agree with?
Inariameme t1_j3i0045 wrote
Isn't agony the thing that will be normalized by intelligent treatment? Or, isn't that the moment before cognition the first thing they'll map stimulus for?
tommy0guns t1_j3is5bz wrote
When it’s not spelled as A.I., it’s fun to read it as AL
[deleted] t1_j3i7y94 wrote
[deleted]
Orc_ t1_j3hrti8 wrote
Imagine if you are in a city under occupation of an enemy force.
Who do you prefer? Humans who hate you, will take out their frustrations on you and do war crimes because of emotions or "killer robots"?
Jahobes t1_j3i3lsr wrote
Conversely who would you rather prefer to occupy your city. Human beings that can relate to you and have some capacity for empathy and can therefore curb the extremism of hateful orders. Or killer robots that follow orders unquestionably including conducting war crimes with zero hesitation or possiblity of revolt.
Orc_ t1_j3iiudv wrote
Since historically speaking my example is more common than yours (troops choosing mercy against orders) I'll go with the bots
[deleted] t1_j3j4dcz wrote
[deleted]
Jahobes t1_j3j4kn8 wrote
That's a really silly counter argument and you clearly haven't put any thought into this. Is the sword worse than a nuke since there are hundreds of millions more examples to choose from? Come on man.
On one hand you have robots who are ultimately controlled by humans. If the robot controllers are genocidal assholes then their commands will be carried out without question.
If genocidal officers order soldiers to be genocidal a few will aim up, some will straight up refuse and someone will tell the outside world what happened out of guilt.
In every possible way the ceiling for the humanity of a robot is the same as a human... But the floor is way way lower.
You send killer bots to wipe out a village they will. No questions asked.
You send humans to wipe out a village. They may or may not but if they did more than likely someone from that team will have a guilt trip 1 year or 20 years after it happened. It will not go unanswered
Orc_ t1_j3jalwx wrote
Not really because I'm not comparing anything against bots I'm comparing your premise against history then extrapolating from that.
You will find 99/100 war crimes in the last 100 years weren't even sanctioned by the tops brass.
Bots follow orders, soldiers follow orders on top of being emotional and erratic.
[deleted] t1_j3jcw06 wrote
[removed]
rixtil41 t1_j3inmbh wrote
If I get killed at least it I won't have to deal with emotional cringe speeches with killer robots.
FuturologyBot t1_j3g6l68 wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/izumi3682:
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.
From the article.
>This phenomenon — of some people preferring robots (in this case, an apparently-neutral robot over an opinionated human) becomes more important as we enter an era of AI-enabled robots. And it may partly explain why AI-enabled robots enjoy public support despite warning from prominent figures ranging from Henry Kissinger to former Google boss Eric Schmidt about the risks of unfettered AI. If someone suspects that opinionated-humans in authority intend to do them or their family harm, then that person will probably prefer an apparently neutral, AI-enabled robot over an obviously bigoted human.
And this truly telling finish...
>If any one thing is clear, it is that we are intellectually unprepared for both this era and the debate that it will spur.
People do not have a clue what is coming. But they will all know about the year 2025 when true, albeit limited AGI comes into existence. But that AGI will not stay limited for long. By the year 2028 it will quite complex indeed. And once that happens ASI is very close to realization. And that would constitute a TS. I place it about the year 2029, give or take two years.
Absolutely around the mid decade there will be legislation attempting to roll back the power of AI, but it will be far too little, far too late. In fact right now today, the Europeans are attempting legislation to control the development of AI. Sorry, that cat is already out the bag.
I hope it all goes well for us. I think it will.
Tangentially related. This is about how humans will come to prefer AI "creativity" to that of "inferior" humans.
And that leads me to another consideration. What happens when we remove mental illness and psychiatric disorders from the the world? Have you ever read a poem by Sylvia Plath? Have you ever remarked on the unusual beauty of a Van Gogh painting. Did you like the band "Nirvana", or Amy Winehouse? It is that kind of "defect" in human cognition that brings about the transcendent forms of art that evokes such an amazing resonance in us, the observer or listener. The same thing that makes a human crazier than a shit-house rat, is also the same thing that makes that human a genius.
The 100K question then is, will we miss that? Do we really want to give it up? Mental illness and psychiatric disorders hurt. I imagine everyone wants to take those agonies away. Right?
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/106e70m/killer_robots_and_ais_dirty_little_secret_many/j3g5aqy/
[deleted] t1_j3gb0f2 wrote
[removed]
LegendaryPlayboy t1_j3goh35 wrote
We are on this path. We need AI that works as an autopilot for us.
[deleted] t1_j3h67n1 wrote
[removed]
WEN_QONHIUNG t1_j3hhvwj wrote
Dealing with a real person compels us to be polite, empathetic, and respectful of the other person’s time, effort, and patience in serving our needs. I’d rather just bark commands at an AI, as it is less cognitively taxing.
mydogeatspoop2023 t1_j3jm4at wrote
I hate doing all that extraneous human-interaction stuff when I just need to get what I want. If a machine can do it for me in a few mouseclicks or commands in a terminal it will always be the superior choice.
Of course, I don't see much value in having a waitress serve me, when I could make 20 pre-packaged well-portioned nutritious meals at home in advance, and eat and be done in ten minutes, for $2 a meal. But friends and family see this as lacking in social grace, so I have to go along with the inefficiency (driving to restaurant, ordering, waiting, talking about some trivial thing the other humans care about, etc.)
WEN_QONHIUNG t1_j3jwaq5 wrote
Preaching to the choir! I like human interaction with friends, their friends, and new acquaintances, but when procuring basic goods and services, I’d choose a robot every time.
“Hi how are we all doing today? Can I tell you about our specials tonight? Is there anything else I can get for you?”
Yeah, no, I’ll reach out if I need or want something.
That being said, if I need troubleshooting help, I want a human who speaks both my language and the language of the relevant technology fluently.
[deleted] t1_j3i1fwc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j3i7z22 wrote
[removed]
AndromedaAnimated t1_j3kmgol wrote
Humans are always a risk. They interact socially and have their own intentions. Robots haven’t had intentions so far.
We will see if this changes with more powerful AI into which we will read intentions (or which might even have them emerge within its network).
Salvia_McLovin t1_j3kop0y wrote
as soon as transhumanism becomes real i'm joining the robots
[deleted] t1_j3kzb54 wrote
[deleted]
Salvia_McLovin t1_j3miws2 wrote
my concern is with transhuman-machine interfaces is the possibility of infection around the site of the physical hardware and if energy to my computer is lost, my conscious is lost too, unless we can figure out how to get human consciousness onto non volatile memory. that would be true immortality unless said memory was destroyed physically
[deleted] t1_j3kva5s wrote
[removed]
Osato t1_j3lg6a3 wrote
Makes sense.
Machines don't care what you ask them to do. They just do it.
Even if the thing you ask them to do sounds really stupid at first glance.
They simply aren't smart enough to put your own intelligence into doubt.
That's what makes them so likable. It's like active listening, except it permeates everything they do.
​
The one exception is robots that use voice/text recognition instead of an actual interface with optimized UX.
Especially robocalls. Those are particularly annoying.
hummingbird_mywill t1_j3mdz36 wrote
I replied to OP, but reposting here as a general comment.
I don’t think this article is particularly well reasoned. He takes three very different scenarios and tries to weave them into one thesis, when in fact only one of those scenarios is relevant to his point and the data doesn’t support it.
His theory is that people prefer robots over humans because they might be “opinionated.” To support this he cites his anecdote about empty human cash registers and line ups to use the self-checkout, and a woman says she likes self-checkout so she won’t be judged by the cashier. Yet the author cites a source that only 1/3 people prefer self-checkout to a cashier, so this point doesn’t support his thesis.
He cites preference of speed cameras over cops and even acknowledges the real danger people have interacting with police… reducing this to fear of interacting with an “opinionated” person is disingenuous and frankly a little offensive. Does not support the thesis.
He cites preference for autonomous AI military pilots who are not afraid to “die.” Obviously this is a massive military advancement, both strategically and simply preserving human life. Nothing to do with the thesis of “opinionated” people.
Self-driving cars versus cabbies/Uber eliminates real risk of sexual assault. Not relevant to the thesis. There might be something there for people who simply like having the freedom to choose the music/podcast, but we have no data for that.
As for the comment about mental disorders and creativity… yes I am bipolar and yes we are tremendously creative, thank you thank you. Unfortunately we die prematurely in vast numbers on account of our disorder if it’s untreated. However, our disorder makes us quite attractive in the early days and thus we tend to procreate before our disorder really takes over and ruins lives and bipolar stays in the gene pool.
What are you implying when you say eliminate mental illness/mental disorder? This is a really interesting discussion that’s pretty unrelated to the article you posted but I would need more defining. To be clear, no one has a f**king clue what causes bipolar most of the time. It is guesswork to treat the symptoms, which are what define the presence of the disorder or not. The underlying causes are unknown, so it’s not a matter of hitting a gene switch.
Are we talking eugenics? Evil robot overloads massacring us? Or just treated and more healthy? Given that we procreate, how is it going to be eliminated?
Second last point, a person can remain mentally disordered and be not mentally ill. My disorder is very well managed and I am no more “ill” than maybe someone with a temper. I am currently not as prolific/productive in art or academics now as I was when I was ill and untreated, however I would be dead by now if I wasn’t treated so every year it continues to pay off for society. My quality of life is also better (obviously, I’m alive).
Finally, if a cure to mental disorder was an option, it’s not up to society to decide whether or not it’s “worth it” to take or not, pitting their productivity against their life. It’s a decision for the disordered people to make. I know most would take it. Would it be a bummer for the world to not have “the Nutcracker” and other works? Sure. But Tchaikovsky was also utterly miserable 10/12 months of the year and if there was a cure for his disorder then who are we to deny it? And we don’t know that he couldn’t write it while healthy.
Gagarin1961 t1_j3g5gmy wrote
People have too much shit to do. If I ask an AI how to do something in three different ways it’s not going to be frustrated.