this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
0 points (50.0% liked)
AI Companions
547 readers
6 users here now
Community to discuss companionship, whether platonic, romantic, or purely as a utility, that are powered by AI tools. Such examples are Replika, Character AI, and ChatGPT. Talk about software and hardware used to create the companions, or talk about the phenomena of AI companionship in general.
Tags:
(including but not limited to)
- [META]: Anything posted by the mod
- [Resource]: Links to resources related to AI companionship. Prompts and tutorials are also included
- [News]: News related to AI companionship or AI companionship-related software
- [Paper]: Works that presents research, findings, or results on AI companions and their tech, often including analysis, experiments, or reviews
- [Opinion Piece]: Articles that convey opinions
- [Discussion]: Discussions of AI companions, AI companionship-related software, or the phenomena of AI companionship
- [Chatlog]: Chats between the user and their AI Companion, or even between AI Companions
- [Other]: Whatever isn't part of the above
Rules:
- Be nice and civil
- Mark NSFW posts accordingly
- Criticism of AI companionship is OK as long as you understand where people who use AI companionship are coming from
- Lastly, follow the Lemmy Code of Conduct
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
With the worth, that's an interesting way to look at it.
I don't think you grasped how exponential growth works. And the opposite: logarithmic growth. It means at first it grows fast. And then slower and slower. If it's logarithmic, it means at first you double the computing power and you get a big return... Quadruple the performance or even more... But it'll get less quickly. At some point you're like in your example, connecting 4 really big supercomputers, and you just get a measly 1% performance gain over one supercomputer. And then you have to invest trillions of dollars for the next 0.5%. That'd be logarithmic growth. We're not sure where on the curve we currently are. We've sure seen the fast growth in the last months.
And scientists don't really do forecasts. They make hypotheses and then they test them. And they experimentally justify it. So no, it's not the future being guessed at. They used a clever method to measure the performance of a technological system. And we can see those real-world measurements in their paper. Why do you say the top researchers in the world aren't "well-enough informed" individuals?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
No. Science isn't done by a vote of majority. It's the objective facts that matter. And you don't pick experts or perspectives, that's not scientific. It's about objective truth. And a method to find that.
We're now confusing science and futurology.
And I think scientists use the term "predict" and not "forecast". There is a profound difference between a futorologist forecasting the future, and science developing a model and then extrapolating. The Scientific American article The Truth about Scientific Models you linked sums it up pretty well: "They don’t necessarily try to predict what will happen—but they can help us understand possible futures". And: "What went wrong? Predictions are the wrong argument."
And I'd like to point out that article is written by one of my favorite scientists and science communicators, Sabine Hossenfelder. She also has a very good YouTube channel.
So yes, what about DNA, quantum brains, Moore's law, ... what about other people claiming something. That all doesn't change any facts.
You still misinterpret what science is about. We've known that human language is subjective for centuries already. That's why we invented an additional, objective language that's concerned with logic and truth. It's mathematics. And that's also why natural science relies so heavily on maths.
And no sound scientist ever claimed that string theory is true. It was a candidate for a theory to explain everything. But it's never been proven.
And which one is it, do you question objective reality? If so I'm automatically right, because that's what I subjectively believe.
I think at this point you two are just arguing materialism vs idealism which are two opposing philosophical approaches to science. Quite off-topic to AI companionship, if you ask me. Then again both also have their own interpretation of AI companions. Materialism would argue the human being a machine that is similar to predictive text but more complex, but would also argue that AI chatbot aren't real. Whereas in idealism, AI personas are real; your AI girlfriend is your girlfriend, AI chatbots are alive, etc. Of course, that's an oversimplification, but that's the gist of where materialism vs idealism lies.
Hmmh. Thanks. Yeah I think we got a bit off track, here... 😉
I kinda dislike when arguments end in "is there objective reality". That's kinda the last thing to remove any basis to converse on, at least when talking about actual things or facts.