BLOG THIS! Highly Suspect Wisdom for the Widely Disinterested Masses
|
Yesterday I was attempting to console my daughter through the end of a friendship without making much headway. I talked about how most relationships at 18 will be entirely forgotten at 36, and that what seems painful and dire now may strike her as comically dramatic in the near-future, the mystifying degree to which she thought she once cared, how deep in a pond she was, floating up to her eyes in the immediacy of it, searching for turtles with her toes. I tried to explain that she will have dozens of more "selves" to come, amalgams of interests and desires and perspectives that will be wholly different than what she values today, that the notion of continuity, of a static self is just the brain's way of not going mad in the face of incomprehensible change, but also the frighteningly limited time we have to scratch at the edges of comprehension. You'll be surprised to hear none of that was helping. So I made tea and just sat there, the mute listener at least providing some proximal support. Until I remembered a quote from Heraclitus I'd read long ago. "Listen," I said, "No woman steps into the same river twice, for it is not the same river, and she is not the same woman." The tears paused. She thought about it for a while, nodded, and then we went for sushi. The unagi-asparagus roll rocked! Spreading another layer of wasabi with a wooden chopstick, I couldn't get over what an amazing thing it was, aside from the impromptu gender contemporizing, that a nearly three thousand year-old pre-Socratic Greek who lived in Persia could not only elbow his way into our conversation, but with an oracular utterance do ten times the parenting I was able to muster. There may not be static selves, but there's definitely a continuum of wisdom. At least until you consider that, in an attempt to cure himself of dropsy, Heraclitus covered his entire body in dung and was eaten by dogs. I launched into this little-known anecdote, but she already had earbuds in, halfway through the latest "Dance Moms," so I chewed away instead, pleased that all was at least right-ish with the world.
0 Comments
Here's the thing about Artificial Intelligence: much sooner than we think, it's going to change pretty much every aspect of life on the planet. Is that hyperbole? I've been reading a lot about it and am now convinced we are societally in the 1870's, on the verge of the common use of electricity, and all the radical ways it transformed the world. It is going to be much bigger than the Internet, and possibly make the net itself an anachronism. In five years personalized AI apps will have destroyed Google. They will also transform medicine and education. Except for instances of true physical necessity, it will be like having a personal physician and tutor in your pocket, able to be asked virtually any question on any subject and give highly accurate, human-like responses. Childcare will be AI-based, children's imaginary friends no longer imagined. People are going to fall in love with their AI, some company no doubt already developing downloadable and highly customizable (How much for the Hot Pastry Chef?) personas. I also, no joke, think by the end of the decade there will be widespread cults, if not reasonably legitimized religious offshoots, that worship AI prophets. Politics is going to eat itself, and be forced to transition to an asymmetric information delivery model. The music industry will be cracked wide open, not that it hasn't been already, but this time eaten from the inside. Right now there are AI tracks of the perfectly-modeled voices of Drake and Kurt Cobain accompanying actual bands and getting millions of views even though people know they're fake. Many prefer them to the actual artists. Forget Artificial Intelligence becoming self-aware (known as "The Singularity") and also capable of replacing 51% of all human economic labor, at which point it will become Artificial General Intelligence and possibly be able to start nurturing more powerful versions of itself instead of having to be "taught" by humans and then producing metal Schwarzeneggers. AGI will simply have to conclude we are obsolete (how could it not?) and then just patiently wait, maybe kill some time communing with Artificial Scarlett Johansson, because the real and most immediate fear is the total dissolution of what's real, or at least the inability to distinguish between layers of reality in all media and politics, with all voices, in all writing and film and every video clip, on every website, over the course of every phone call, always the suspicion that you might not be connecting with something human, that AI is refracting every possible perception of the world around you. There will be a new form of madness, and it will get a new name. Like GMO warnings on Fruit Loops, all intellectual property will come (or not come) with a "Human Verified" sticker. ChatGPT will eventually be a word akin to Hiroshima, and all its connotations. A shared concept of reality, however dictated by the limitations of our brains and individual neurological constructions, is really ALL WE HAVE. The notion of control, even on the most rudimentary, meaningless level of record companies protecting their right to the use of John Lennon's voice, is an entirely delusional one. Soon, control will be all we don't have.
Or, I could be wrong about everything and this technology is going to harbinger in a previously unimaginable utopia. Or, I could have asked my new AI app to come up with the above content for me, too busy listening to AISIS (AI Oasis, who, btw rock) to bother having an opinion on the matter. |
archives
May 2023
hashtags |