82,853
edits
Electric monk: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
How so? Like so: if [[AI]] can map, track and anticipate all human frailty, and thereby predict with greater certainty even than we can, our next moves, then [[AI]] can ''emulate'' human frailty. It can ''impersonate'' it. If it can impersonate it, it can ''fake'' it. The point must soon arrive, therefore, when we can deploy [[AI]] to do our doom-scrolling on our behalf. And that ought to be devastating. Think GameStop, only with the Redditors tooled up with the machines the hedgies have. Call this implementation an “[[avatar]]”. | How so? Like so: if [[AI]] can map, track and anticipate all human frailty, and thereby predict with greater certainty even than we can, our next moves, then [[AI]] can ''emulate'' human frailty. It can ''impersonate'' it. If it can impersonate it, it can ''fake'' it. The point must soon arrive, therefore, when we can deploy [[AI]] to do our doom-scrolling on our behalf. And that ought to be devastating. Think GameStop, only with the Redditors tooled up with the machines the hedgies have. Call this implementation an “[[avatar]]”. | ||
As {{author|Douglas Adams}} once remarked of the video cassette player which watches television for us that we don't have time to watch ourselves,<ref>[[Grandma Contrarian had the Royal Wedding taped on video. It was her most prized possession. Not once in thirty years did she watch it.<ref> such an [[avatar]] would be a ''labour saving device'': it ''does our [[doom-scrolling]] for us. Now if I can have ''one'' [[avatar]] emulating my human browsing habits — surely I can have ''one thousand''. And if the technology is as good as billed — and we have no reason to believe it is not — then the forthcoming apocalyptic battle will not be between ''us'' and ''the Man'', but between ''our'' technology and ''the Man’s'', and since, [[Q.E.D.]], the Man’s technology has no way of telling ''us'' from ''our avatars'', we we have a natural advantage. Especially since our avatars ''don’t'' have to emulate our behaviour at all. We can obstreporously configure them to emulate ''something else''. | As {{author|Douglas Adams}} once remarked of the video cassette player which watches television for us that we don't have time to watch ourselves,<ref>[[Grandma Contrarian had the Royal Wedding taped on video. It was her most prized possession. Not once in thirty years did she watch it.</ref> such an [[avatar]] would be a ''labour saving device'': it ''does our [[doom-scrolling]] for us. Now if I can have ''one'' [[avatar]] emulating my human browsing habits — surely I can have ''one thousand''. And if the technology is as good as billed — and we have no reason to believe it is not — then the forthcoming apocalyptic battle will not be between ''us'' and ''the Man'', but between ''our'' technology and ''the Man’s'', and since, [[Q.E.D.]], the Man’s technology has no way of telling ''us'' from ''our avatars'', we we have a natural advantage. Especially since our avatars ''don’t'' have to emulate our behaviour at all. We can obstreporously configure them to emulate ''something else''. | ||
So, if we deploy a thousand [[avatars]] each to randomly browse, like and share content ''at random'', constrained only by the requirement that an [[avatar]]’s browsing habits should emulate as nearly as possible the behaviour of ''some'' human, even if not necessarily its host’s, then all that wondrous aggregated data that the FANGS have on us isn’t on us. It is worthless, meaningless, hypothetical. | So, if we deploy a thousand [[avatars]] each to randomly browse, like and share content ''at random'', constrained only by the requirement that an [[avatar]]’s browsing habits should emulate as nearly as possible the behaviour of ''some'' human, even if not necessarily its host’s, then all that wondrous aggregated data that the FANGS have on us isn’t on us. It is worthless, meaningless, hypothetical. | ||