> Humans deceiving humans via technology is a tale as old as time. Plato imagined human torch-bearers manipulating those chained in the cave. He didn't imagine machines doing it autonomously.
And despite a substantial subset of the population knowing this, we continue to do nothing to address it - if anything, more people are devoted to giving people even more powers to deceive at massive scale.
> Incarnate technology deceiving humans is a different domain entirely. Human motivations are ultimately comprehensible by other humans.
Whether they are accurately comprehensible is another matter though.
> But what do I know of the motivations of (for example) the Bible? What happens when the living incarnation of a holy text can literally speak for itself? Or when the average believer thinks it can?
Likely: mostly nothing. Thus, the subconscious mind steps in and generates reality to fill the void.
> Ultimately this may all amount to the same status quo, but seeing what cognitive distortions have come along with literacy, newspapers, radio, TV, and now the Internet, I have to continually ask, will I personally be able to maintain skepticism when the full brunt of an AI and its organs is suggesting faith otherwise?
Do the laws of physics prevent you?
If not, then what? And, have you inquired into there is any pre-existing methodologies for dealing with this phenomenon?
> You can call me an alarmist or melodramatic if you wish, but it should give everyone pause that the delusions of paranoid schizophrenics from the late 20th century are now basically indistinguishable from emerging popular technologies and their downstream effects.
I am far more worried about the delusions of Normies, as they are 95%+ of society and are for the most part "driving the bus", whereas schizophrenics account for a small percentage, and tend to not be assigned many responsibilities.
One of us is more correct than the other - how might we go about accurately determining which of us that is?
And despite a substantial subset of the population knowing this, we continue to do nothing to address it - if anything, more people are devoted to giving people even more powers to deceive at massive scale.
> Incarnate technology deceiving humans is a different domain entirely. Human motivations are ultimately comprehensible by other humans.
Whether they are accurately comprehensible is another matter though.
> But what do I know of the motivations of (for example) the Bible? What happens when the living incarnation of a holy text can literally speak for itself? Or when the average believer thinks it can?
Likely: mostly nothing. Thus, the subconscious mind steps in and generates reality to fill the void.
> Ultimately this may all amount to the same status quo, but seeing what cognitive distortions have come along with literacy, newspapers, radio, TV, and now the Internet, I have to continually ask, will I personally be able to maintain skepticism when the full brunt of an AI and its organs is suggesting faith otherwise?
Do the laws of physics prevent you?
If not, then what? And, have you inquired into there is any pre-existing methodologies for dealing with this phenomenon?
> You can call me an alarmist or melodramatic if you wish, but it should give everyone pause that the delusions of paranoid schizophrenics from the late 20th century are now basically indistinguishable from emerging popular technologies and their downstream effects.
I am far more worried about the delusions of Normies, as they are 95%+ of society and are for the most part "driving the bus", whereas schizophrenics account for a small percentage, and tend to not be assigned many responsibilities.
One of us is more correct than the other - how might we go about accurately determining which of us that is?