Yep, it is the fact that my conversation programs are stateless that makes the situation most appalling. But the point it, the illusion that Splotchy (see www.algebra.com) is a human is created because a lot of humans participate in conversations without even keeping their own "state". Remarks like "oh realy", "that's terrible", etc etc, are stateless form of conversation. igor Alex B. Shepardsen wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Igor Chudov wrote:
Has anyone had cybersex with your incarnation of G W Bush? [shudder]
yep, numerous times. the funny thing is that the "AI" program that is
I don't know who's more screwed up: the people who attempt cybersex with your AI GWB, you for programming the AI to respond to people initiating cybersex, or us for finding it fascinating that this occurs.
[snip]
My experience with splotchy and georgewbush illustrates ridiculousness of most human conversations.
[snip]
Answer: I like talking to you User: so do i
I had the opportunity several years ago to have dinner with author Gentry Lee. We discussed the state of employment in the coming century if it presented a future where automation was ubiquitous.
Lee hypothesized that less than 10% of the population would be employed at any given time. All labor and services that could be done by machines and computers would be. (This was about the time that NeXT Cubes were running the NeXT manufacturing plant, and everyone found that so amazing...) The intelligentsia would become the working class. Humans would only need to "work" as architects of the automation system. People in these roles would work for a small period of time, but spend most of their lives unemployed.
He predicted that the unemployed masses would spend their time in reality simulation programs, living out fantasy lives. This had the benefit of limiting the visible effects of overpopulation, crime, and other social problems. He presented this as a utopian view of the future.
I disagreed for two main reasons. I didn't see it likely that 10% of the world's population would be interested in working to support the other 90%, without receiving something in return. (_The Matrix_ was still a few years from being released, so the thought of using people as a fuel source hadn't occurred to me. I did suggest that perhaps a Soylent Green type scenario might provide some justification for such a lop-sided burden on this working minority, but not enough.) I don't recall that Lee had any really solid answer to this argument.
The other issue I had, and the one that applies to this thread, is that I found it impossible to believe that AI personalities and VR environments would have developed far enough to provide systems capable of passing the Turing test [is there an equivalent test for VR systems? A user should not be able to distinguish between VR and reality... ] and thus the 90% of idle masses would not be content to be fed brain candy, rotting their lives away in computer generated fantasies.
I'm becoming convinced that I was wrong.
I've heard of people dropping out of college because they have spent too much time on text-based MUDs. I've seen teenagers go into debt so that they could spend most of their waking moments in the arcades.
And now, I've read a transcript of a person getting herself off through a text conversation with a stateless program designed to emulate one of the most boring presidential candidates in years.
People like this would be more than happy to embrace Lee's virtual reality existence, and would be more than willing to exist on the donations provided by the productive few. I doubt they would be motivated enough to cause any trouble for this plan.
Our "human rights" measures are counteracting the natural protections against laziness and stupidity. The human species is in trouble if people like "User" breed.
God, I hate welfare.
- Igor.