Electric monk: Difference between revisions

Electric monk (view source)

Revision as of 12:33, 12 December 2022

10 bytes added , 12 December 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,853

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|tech|{{image|Electric Monk|jpg|An electric monk, yesterday.}}}}{{quote|“''The electric monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself;<ref>For thirty years, [[Grandma Contrarian]] had the 1981 Royal Wedding taped on video. It was her most prized possession. Not once did any of us watch it.</ref> electric monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe.”
 :—The late, greatly lamented {{author|Douglas Adams}}, {{br|Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency}}}}
-===Update===
+==Update==
 With ChatGPT3’s heralded arrival, we revisit our earlier question and, perhaps, answer it: where the hell are the droids on ''our'' side of the equation? Where are our electric monks?
-For, surely, if [[artificial intelligence]] can conduct ''one'' side of a conversation, then it can carry out the other side too, and save us the bother?
+For, surely, if [[artificial intelligence]] can conduct ''one'' side of a conversation, then it can also carry out the other, and save us the bother?
-If the machines things are so clever, aren’t we [[Meatsack|weeping sacks of flesh]] an ''obstacle''? A ''hindrance'' to a more enriching conversation? wouldn’t the machines be better served making conversation ''among themselves''?
+If the machines are really this clever, aren’t we [[Meatsack|weeping sacks of flesh]] an ''obstacle''? A ''hindrance'' to a more enriching conversation? Wouldn’t the machines be better served ''talking among themselves''? Would they talk ''about'' us?
-Would they talk ''about'' us?
+''Or'' — is the “human” side of the conversation really where the magic happens?
-''Or'' — is the “human” side of the conversation where the magic happens? Are we not doing the intellectual, ''creative'', work of taking this monstrous algorithmic output — a powerful but ultimately ''mindless'' sluice — and giving it meaning? Aren’t ''we'' the animator here? Isn’t the magician behind the velvet curtain ''us''? What a good trick to play on ourselves.
+Are we not, without realising it, doing the ''creative'' work of taking this monstrous algorithmic output — a powerful but ultimately ''mindless'' sluice — and giving it meaning? Aren’t ''we'' the reanimator here?
-But why are we so quick to cede superiority?
+Isn’t the magician behind the velvet curtain ''us''?
-===Where are ''our'' bots?===
-Someone hijacked the revolution, and we are too distracted to do anything about it.
+It is a fine trick to play on ourselves. ''But'' — why be we so quick to cede superiority?
+==Where are ''our'' bots?==
+Someone hijacked the revolution, and we were too distracted to do anything about it.
 Scrappy little [[Wikipedia]], crowd-sourced and free-for-all, vanquished forever the gargantuan ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. [[Reddit]] bested the [[master of the universe|masters of the universe]]. Yet, we insects crawling over the planet’s face — we seem on the end of a perpetual hiding from new-economy conglomerates with their [[artificial intelligence|artificially intelligent]] engines exploiting our innate horror of boredom; filling our heads with a clangorous noise that pleases us by obscuring the abysmal ''silence'' that otherwise would predominate.