Yea... A old friend of mine studies this subject of Machine learning. Makes me think that in the near future the can make a copy from my personality based of all of my internet history, the shops I visit and the conversations I have online and the tings I like. The can make an immortal version of me that is exactly like me. I could be dead for 20 years and nobody would notice. We could buy new online friends that are 100% robots.
Your' best creative ideas
- Thread starter Dean Jay
- Start date
Yeah i've been saying this for a while...
1000 years from now, if you want to look back in history, see what peoples lives were like... we are the first generation of recorded digital history, we are the generation that is as far back in time as anyone can look. You can check out any average joe from the 21st century and see their everyday thoughts, even what they had for breakfast on their instagram... everything recorded in digital history for the first time. and you can use all that info to create an ai bot that simulates anyones personality.
I also think we are gonna wreck the planet with unbridled consumption, and we are gonna be the most hated generation in the history of the planet. like 100 generations in a row of people cursing our names for the wrecked planet they had to inherit
Last edited:
to continue this train of thought (lol) if this really did happen, people will be forced to take a long hard look at democracy and it's effects.
I think the population may be forced to admit that democracy was an epic failure, and that humanities appetites far exceed our restraints.
this will be followed by a long, worldwide reign of totalitian regimes and reduction of personal liberties. When populations complain about their living conditions the governments will simply point to our generation in history and say... look at these peoples lives, how they destroyed the planet with their liberties and how miserable and depressed they were as they did it.
Our irresponsibility will serve as a weapon to subjucate entire populations, proof that populations cannot handle liberty or freedom responsibly.
living proof that democracy cannot exist in balance with the planets environment.
Given the choice between making hard sacrifies or voting for an easier day today, populations will always vote themselves the easier day today.
Last edited:
I'm sure you're at least partially right. Data clones would never be accurate though, since the computers could only aggregate surface behavior, such as online actions, but not the reasoning behind them, or the chaos aspects of life that constantly affect how people act. In example, people with painful injuries like a broken foot are often either quick to anger, or slow with painkillers, but the computer reconstructing the personality would have little to no idea about these background factors, and would always paint the persona inaccurately. Makes you think about this whole internet culture of trying to find someone's worst comment or action of all time, and then judging who they are as a person by that. I think it's at least possible that people are a bit deeper than their online comments from any isolated day. AI is very much about weighting, or ascribing relative importance to many factors being analyzed. Which comments were offhand, which were jokes, which were windows into their soul? If you can't know for sure, the AI probably can't either.
My Amazon Shopping history would not really tell you much about me. I buy more hard drives than most people, that's it. I can hear an AI tearfully eulogizing me now. "Nate was many things, a husband, an inventor, an artist, but above all, he was a purchaser of 2.1 standard HDMI cables"
This is a really big can of worms. People in general are not smart enough to auto regulate, we've seen that 10k times in a row. However, if you take away their ability to auto regulate, it makes things even worse. South Korea is stable and comfortable, but with very limited personal freedom on the cultural level, and it's a caste system on top of that. In the US, we have personal freedoms that make life worth living, but everybody bought cocaine from 1970 to 2000, and nobody wanted to do interstate infrastructure maintenance. It's a really tough problem to solve, because human nature fails us over and over. The free market seems great, until you notice that crack dealers have 200x the wealth of firefighters. You can literally run into a fire and save a life, and end up with a landlord that sells 4 loco. By the numbers, people don't want stability, or peace, or progress. They want dopamine, and they want it now.
The average person, on either side of the environmental debate, simply doesn't have the scope to process what's happening. One side says we're not doing any damage, that's obviously untrue. The other side says that buying a 3 dollar recycling bag and throwing a soda can in it will eventually add up to fixing the sky. That's obviously untrue. If you want one single factor that would actually change things, it would be to loose the unwarranted fear of nuclear power. Every time a nuclear plant replaces 10 coal plants, that does about the same amount of good as every person on every street in the country obsessing about plastic bags for a decade. No nuclear plant has had a preventable meltdown since the cold war, but people in my state demand coal, and protest nuclear power as if someone was trying to build a 400 ft Ted Bundy in their neighborhood.
I take no pleasure in saying that people can't get things of this scale right, I'm just looking at the tale of the tape, across 200 cultures over 2000 years. They say that people who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it. The issue is that almost no one understands any history, or it's relevance. During the previous administration, I must have asked 100 people if they remembered hearing the phrase "fake news" anywhere before. Nobody ever remembered hearing it before. That's because they used to say it in other languages. Stalin called news outlets that failed to parrot him "the lying press". Hitler labeled journalists as "the enemy of the people". Putin calls journalists that question the war in Ukraine "traitors to the patriotic". In fact discrediting reporters has been a standard template for anyone trying to seize nationalistic power and install a corrupt regime. To make things worse, the press often gets things wrong, which lends credibility to this manipulation technique.
Anyway rant over.
I hope you are right on this one. But internet data goes beyond My Amazon Shopping history. Its reading the movies I like, the fiends I have, the tings my friends like, how long you are in the stores, the tings I buy, How long I watch a certain movie on Facebook, what triggers my attention, and probably my Quora interests and subjects, my medical history, my political affiliation, my philosophical and moral standpoints based on my youtube interactions.
In your example you say that the computer reconstructing the personality would have little to no idea about these background factors, and would always paint the persona inaccurately.
But I think that google and others are training them to make it better. That it can locate me visiting the doctor and possible me purchasing painkillers in the local supermarket. That it is training it to recognise personal purchases and emotional purchases. It will train it to become better and better. And looking at the DALL-E 2 pastern recognition is becoming very good. And it takes only a second to generate an convincing painting or the surreal movie you showed. Put all of my data and other people's data on a database and put the same principles in place like the DALL-E 2 does with the database of images, and with lots of trail and error we will have made a copy of who I am.
Its an interesting SF concept that is inspiring ideas. What If my family wants a copy of me but wants to improve me? Who am I without my crippling anxiety and could I replace my personality with one that I made? Or what if an parent wants a copy of there diseased child but there is not enough data?
Even worse?? No, I have to disagree with you there lol.
Bear in mind this whole train of thought is based around the notion that the worst case environmental consequences will come to pass.
Sea levels rising 240ft, global temptures at 120F where animals are dropping dead and the little crop lands we have left are drying up and withering. A place so hot and disgusting that's it's miserable for everyone just to exist, and half the planets population is dehomed and starving looking to kill and steal from the other half.
Something like this would absolutely radicalize the population, and also I cannot think of anything worse in the events of human history than wrecking the entire planet with unbridled consumption.
People are so dumb, they used to insist that it was impossible to hunt animals to extinction.
No way humans could have THAT kind of impact on the environment, they would ignorantly insist.
And now here we are again all these years later.
The ENTIRE FACE of the planet has changed from outer space looking down; we are covered in industry.
But *oh no* - no way we could possibly impact the planet lol.
Anyway I'd love to be wrong here but that was all just a theory, just connecting the dots on the what if, for environmental catastrophe.
Maybe we can get lucky and have some technological advancements that terraform away our pollution, etc.