5 ms·

The point of it all is the human connection - not the answers.

by slyfox125 1y ago

charcircuit 1y ago
The AI can provide both the human connection and the answers.
- onionisafruit 1y ago
  AI can provide a human connection if it’s programmed to route calls to a real human.
- jdiff 1y ago
  It is a severe reach to say that AI can provide human connection. At best, it can provide the illusion, for some. And for those people, I'm not going to say that that's not valuable or legitimate for them. But it's pushing it one step too far to imply that that's a good idea for everyone.
  - brookst 1y ago
    God help us if we determine there is nothing special about human cognition. A lot of people are putting a lot of faith in what amounts to the soul. I’m not at all sure it exists.
    - jdiff 1y ago
      Both can be true. There can be nothing physically or metaphysically "special" about human cognition, and at the same time, we can also be very, very far away from creating even a holistic facsimile. We've got echoes of it in statistical, predictive models, though, and that's shoved the idea into the discourse far before its time.
      - brookst 1y ago
        I agree. My point is that if there’s no mystic soul, it’s probably a mistake to say AI can’t provide the same actual connection that humans do. Today’s AI can’t, for most people, but it’s a statement about maturity of the tech, not human special-ness. I also maybe agree with “very very far away”, in the 20ish year range. Farther than some people think, closer than others do. If and when we get to a place where AI reaches that holistic facsimile, I’m not sure what I’ll think of humans who reject the idea and insist that we are qualitatively different because (insert biological or spiritual rationale here). I suspect it will feel like seeing someone mistreat a call center employee because they happen to be in India, or sound like a disliked minority.
        fc417fc802 1y ago
        > probably a mistake to say AI can’t provide the same actual connection that humans do. Almost as a matter of definition by the time AI can provide such a connection there won't be anything distinguishing it from an actual human. Which is to say, what you're implying there is an artificially manufactured but fully functional human.
    - slyfox125 1y ago
      Existence of a/the soul isn't the only reason machines cannot replace people in the context of something like this. One reason is that the human experience is dependent upon the biological nature of man. The biological systems color the experience. The pumping of blood, the nervous system, the heart beating, and ultimately, one's awareness of the specific type of mortality inherent to biological organisms, are integral to the experience. If you accurately reproduce that experience then perhaps you've simply made a human rather than a machine. Of course that claim spurs many subsequent philosophical arguments. Ultimately though, a video game console emulator is not the literal console no matter how accurate it is. A second reason is simply the subjective experience of a person. Regardless of how accurate the simulation is, ultimately, if the person is aware the other end isn't human, the experience is tainted (for better or worse depending on the individual's opinion - but tainted nonetheless). Knowledge of the truth will necessarily affect the experience. The alternative - being in the dark or outright deception - raises other questions of genuinity that taint the experience. A conversation with a human, by another human, will never be the same as a conversation with a machine - by definition.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    And the illusion only has to last the duration of a phone call. I think it's a reasonable bar that can be passed today.
- slyfox125 1y ago
  It cannot because it is not human. It can emulate the experience but it will never be genuine. Generally, if a caller ever became aware that it wasn't truly a person on the other end it would lessen the interaction. Whether that is justified or not is debatable, but it is nonetheless the case and thus the end result is not the same.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    It may not be the same, but it could be a better overall experience compared to using humans.
    - slyfox125 1y ago
      Interesting point that I also alluded to elsewhere. The perspective of good/bad could vary highly depending on the individual. And really, it could vary highly based on what any one individual is looking for out of a particular conversation at that moment: unconditonal affirmation, critical obversations, etc.
    - mrguyorama 1y ago
      For what definition of "better"?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- alt227 1y ago
  How can a machine provide a human connection on its own?
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    The same way a machine can pass the turing test.
    - alt227 1y ago
      I dont think communicating to text on a screen can ever be called 'a human connection', regardless of whether there is an actual human on the other side or not.

The point of it all is the human connection - not the answers.

charcircuit 1y ago

The AI can provide both the human connection and the answers.

onionisafruit 1y ago
AI can provide a human connection if it’s programmed to route calls to a real human.
jdiff 1y ago
It is a severe reach to say that AI can provide human connection. At best, it can provide the illusion, for some. And for those people, I'm not going to say that that's not valuable or legitimate for them. But it's pushing it one step too far to imply that that's a good idea for everyone.
- brookst 1y ago
  God help us if we determine there is nothing special about human cognition. A lot of people are putting a lot of faith in what amounts to the soul. I’m not at all sure it exists.
  - jdiff 1y ago
    Both can be true. There can be nothing physically or metaphysically "special" about human cognition, and at the same time, we can also be very, very far away from creating even a holistic facsimile. We've got echoes of it in statistical, predictive models, though, and that's shoved the idea into the discourse far before its time.
    - brookst 1y ago
      I agree. My point is that if there’s no mystic soul, it’s probably a mistake to say AI can’t provide the same actual connection that humans do. Today’s AI can’t, for most people, but it’s a statement about maturity of the tech, not human special-ness. I also maybe agree with “very very far away”, in the 20ish year range. Farther than some people think, closer than others do. If and when we get to a place where AI reaches that holistic facsimile, I’m not sure what I’ll think of humans who reject the idea and insist that we are qualitatively different because (insert biological or spiritual rationale here). I suspect it will feel like seeing someone mistreat a call center employee because they happen to be in India, or sound like a disliked minority.
      - fc417fc802 1y ago
        > probably a mistake to say AI can’t provide the same actual connection that humans do. Almost as a matter of definition by the time AI can provide such a connection there won't be anything distinguishing it from an actual human. Which is to say, what you're implying there is an artificially manufactured but fully functional human.
  - slyfox125 1y ago
    Existence of a/the soul isn't the only reason machines cannot replace people in the context of something like this. One reason is that the human experience is dependent upon the biological nature of man. The biological systems color the experience. The pumping of blood, the nervous system, the heart beating, and ultimately, one's awareness of the specific type of mortality inherent to biological organisms, are integral to the experience. If you accurately reproduce that experience then perhaps you've simply made a human rather than a machine. Of course that claim spurs many subsequent philosophical arguments. Ultimately though, a video game console emulator is not the literal console no matter how accurate it is. A second reason is simply the subjective experience of a person. Regardless of how accurate the simulation is, ultimately, if the person is aware the other end isn't human, the experience is tainted (for better or worse depending on the individual's opinion - but tainted nonetheless). Knowledge of the truth will necessarily affect the experience. The alternative - being in the dark or outright deception - raises other questions of genuinity that taint the experience. A conversation with a human, by another human, will never be the same as a conversation with a machine - by definition.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  And the illusion only has to last the duration of a phone call. I think it's a reasonable bar that can be passed today.
slyfox125 1y ago
It cannot because it is not human. It can emulate the experience but it will never be genuine. Generally, if a caller ever became aware that it wasn't truly a person on the other end it would lessen the interaction. Whether that is justified or not is debatable, but it is nonetheless the case and thus the end result is not the same.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  It may not be the same, but it could be a better overall experience compared to using humans.
  - slyfox125 1y ago
    Interesting point that I also alluded to elsewhere. The perspective of good/bad could vary highly depending on the individual. And really, it could vary highly based on what any one individual is looking for out of a particular conversation at that moment: unconditonal affirmation, critical obversations, etc.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    For what definition of "better"?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
alt227 1y ago
How can a machine provide a human connection on its own?
- charcircuit 1y ago
  The same way a machine can pass the turing test.
  - alt227 1y ago
    I dont think communicating to text on a screen can ever be called 'a human connection', regardless of whether there is an actual human on the other side or not.