when confronted by a chatbot, whenever it’s suspected, for me turns adversarial as in a game, an npc, who i don’t mind engaging with, and also can’t see knowingly crediting it with agency.
i would think my sense would be common, if you think something is real, then it probably is, but if not, upon knowing that, i think most of us engage tactically as a gamelike system, however human-real we dress it as
Over the last year so, I've noticed that whenever someone on Joe Biden's team tweeted out a message on the official account, nearly all the papers/bloggers/etc. spoke of the missives as originating from the president himself, authenticating the fiction.
But a figure like the PotUS was never on social media to personally "connect" with his constituents to begin with. No public figure signs on to a social platform (or ever did a meet & greet for that matter) because they want to get to know their fans and admirers better on the level of individual persons. For them it's about image projection, the curation and valorization of their personal brand, and having their public emanations seen in such a way as to sustain and advance their careers. It's kind of a lowbrow analogy, but the celebrity is like the Psi Reaver from the computer game System Shock 2: the part of them which exists as an insubstantial media entity is what effectively acts in the world, while their corporeal part is only significant insofar as it sustains the projection.
To begin with, and for most of us, this wasn't what we had in mind when we first signed up for Facebook or even put together a personal homepage with a guestbook at the bottom. The idea of using a novel technology to make new friends around the world was powerful and appealing. But at some point—definitely by 2010 the point of no return was behind us—it became increasingly understood that the purpose of having a digital profile was to be like the twentieth-century celebrity, albeit on a reduced scale (in nearly all cases).
And it was an eminently logical conclusion: the technical dimensions of platforms like Twitter or Instagram, and the uses to which they lend themselves and the in situ culture they foster, quickly disabused habitual users of the notion that interpersonal connection was what was happening, or that it was ultimately the point. We matter to the extent that our profile is seen to matter. We exist to the extent that our profile is seen to exist. We are loved to the extent that our profile receives quantifiable tokens of approval by other profiles (ideally of people we don't know personally).
Meta's AI studio only promises to give the average person what Biden has: a virtual PR team managing our socially projected selves on our behalf. It will be seen that by hitting Post and signing off on a quantum of generated content, the user "approves this message." Online life will be like visiting the mall or going to a pop culture convention and seeing people expressing themselves through panoplies of prefabricated gewgaws (buttons, iron-on patches, Crocs charms, T-shirts, keychains, shoelaces, etc.) that they didn't make themselves, but which are nonetheless understood to specify who they are and what they're about—except now the person "wearing" the stuff has, as far as the scroller is concerned, wholly merged with their swag.
The fictitiousness of it will by and large be as it was with the tweets attributed to Joe Biden: beside the point.
really compelling piece abt the ethical consequences the ongoing ai experiment has for social interactions! show how important it should be to discuss those consequences deliberatly before promoting blindfold development...
I had not taken time to actually consider the problems that AI companions create. This is really interesting. I am really interested in the subject. This was an awesome read.
ha, i see what you did there
further explain?
the words before “please become a paid subscriber” message at the end
when confronted by a chatbot, whenever it’s suspected, for me turns adversarial as in a game, an npc, who i don’t mind engaging with, and also can’t see knowingly crediting it with agency.
i would think my sense would be common, if you think something is real, then it probably is, but if not, upon knowing that, i think most of us engage tactically as a gamelike system, however human-real we dress it as
Over the last year so, I've noticed that whenever someone on Joe Biden's team tweeted out a message on the official account, nearly all the papers/bloggers/etc. spoke of the missives as originating from the president himself, authenticating the fiction.
But a figure like the PotUS was never on social media to personally "connect" with his constituents to begin with. No public figure signs on to a social platform (or ever did a meet & greet for that matter) because they want to get to know their fans and admirers better on the level of individual persons. For them it's about image projection, the curation and valorization of their personal brand, and having their public emanations seen in such a way as to sustain and advance their careers. It's kind of a lowbrow analogy, but the celebrity is like the Psi Reaver from the computer game System Shock 2: the part of them which exists as an insubstantial media entity is what effectively acts in the world, while their corporeal part is only significant insofar as it sustains the projection.
To begin with, and for most of us, this wasn't what we had in mind when we first signed up for Facebook or even put together a personal homepage with a guestbook at the bottom. The idea of using a novel technology to make new friends around the world was powerful and appealing. But at some point—definitely by 2010 the point of no return was behind us—it became increasingly understood that the purpose of having a digital profile was to be like the twentieth-century celebrity, albeit on a reduced scale (in nearly all cases).
And it was an eminently logical conclusion: the technical dimensions of platforms like Twitter or Instagram, and the uses to which they lend themselves and the in situ culture they foster, quickly disabused habitual users of the notion that interpersonal connection was what was happening, or that it was ultimately the point. We matter to the extent that our profile is seen to matter. We exist to the extent that our profile is seen to exist. We are loved to the extent that our profile receives quantifiable tokens of approval by other profiles (ideally of people we don't know personally).
Meta's AI studio only promises to give the average person what Biden has: a virtual PR team managing our socially projected selves on our behalf. It will be seen that by hitting Post and signing off on a quantum of generated content, the user "approves this message." Online life will be like visiting the mall or going to a pop culture convention and seeing people expressing themselves through panoplies of prefabricated gewgaws (buttons, iron-on patches, Crocs charms, T-shirts, keychains, shoelaces, etc.) that they didn't make themselves, but which are nonetheless understood to specify who they are and what they're about—except now the person "wearing" the stuff has, as far as the scroller is concerned, wholly merged with their swag.
The fictitiousness of it will by and large be as it was with the tweets attributed to Joe Biden: beside the point.
This was incisive, perceptive, well-written, and incredibly sad.
“Doesn’t anyone remember laughter”….
Didn’t Robert Plant state that to the audience in the film ‘Song Remains the Same’ 1979? Ha ha
really compelling piece abt the ethical consequences the ongoing ai experiment has for social interactions! show how important it should be to discuss those consequences deliberatly before promoting blindfold development...
Ooooof.
I had not taken time to actually consider the problems that AI companions create. This is really interesting. I am really interested in the subject. This was an awesome read.