yétiJul 25, 2023
Jon Ingold

Fascinating article on the creator of ELIZA (which it turns out is pretty much the least interesting thing he did) and the limitations, and the cult, of AI.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/25/joseph-weizenbaum-inventor-eliza-chatbot-turned-against-artificial-intelligence-ai

"Living well with computers would mean putting them in their proper place: as aides to calculation, never judgment."

Weizenbaum’s nightmares: how the inventor of the first chatbot turned against AI

Computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum was there at the dawn of artificial intelligence – but he was also adamant that we must never confuse computers with humans

The Guardian
Jul 25, 2023 at 9:01amWeb
Show threadJon IngoldJul 25, 2023
"He argued that no computer could ever fully understand a human being. Then he went one step further: no human being could ever fully understand another human being... We can use language to communicate, but ... some things can’t be communicated at all."
Show threadJon IngoldJul 25, 2023
I've also been reading up about spiritualism recently and there's a fascinating resonance: at the time, spiritualism was viewed by many "rational" Victorians as a more scientific approach to the question of Heaven. It made Heaven into a place that you could be "in", seancés could "test" it.
Show threadJon IngoldJul 25, 2023
Just as modern AI loons view AI as a demonstration of their fascistic worldview that all human thought is mere calculation and that we are nothing more than meat-processors. (If that's true, then compassion is irrelevant, the weak and infirm are "buggy", etc)
Show threadJon IngoldJul 25, 2023
in both cases, the fear that we - humans - really are unique and precious is so terrifying to the self-declared rationalist that it is easier to believe there are self-aware ghosts beyond the veil / inside the server - than it is to believe that kids dying in poverty are as human as you
Show threadVictor GijsbersJul 25, 2023
@joningold It absolutely is a failure of courage in the face of the, admittedly terrifying, demand to love.
Show threadJon IngoldJul 25, 2023
@victorgijsbers the article contextulises it within the ww2->vietnam war period in the US which makes a ton of sense; a period in which the state was dedicated to the principle of xeno-ifying the entire outside world
Show threadVictor GijsbersJul 25, 2023
@joningold Haven't read it yet, but certainly will!
Show threadMattias WernérJul 25, 2023
@joningold Very well said. I've been having similar thoughts percolating in my mind, but you summarised it succinctly.
Show threadrobrykJul 25, 2023

@joningold

I don't see how one follows from the other. Why would an accurate simulation of me deserve less compassion than me?

Show threadJon IngoldJul 25, 2023
@robryk because you can fix it
Show threadPaul Marques MotaJul 25, 2023

@joningold I liked that article, especially the conclusion:

"It is a future in which we form a relationship with AI as we would with another species: awkwardly, across great distances, but with the potential for some rewarding moments. Dolphins would make bad judges and terrible shrinks. But they might make for interesting friends."