It all sounds rather like the technological equivalent of a Victorian seance. But what I want to know is, where do I go to buy the advertising space? Just imagine the scene: “Yes, dear, we’re all so happy here on the Other Side — because we all use Brand X washing powder!”
Simon S
3 years ago
Brilliant article. “The more we come to expect an online world tailored to individual desire, the less willing we’ll be to compromise on a shared world offline.” If only the whole world could see this and not only the profiteers hurtling us towards dehumanized, dystopian division and disaster.
You said everything I wanted to. Just here to appreciate the comment and congratulate the writer aswell
E Wyatt
3 years ago
This is all very reminiscent of Charlie Brookner’s “Be Right Back” – where the bereaved woman ends up sticking the deceased partner’s robot in the attic because it couldn’t truly reflect the real person’s spirit.
Yes. My first thought reading the beginning of the article: BLACK MIRROR AGAIN
Prashant Kotak
3 years ago
“…We should not welcome this development…”
That assumes humanity has agency over the direction the algorithmic and gene-edit technologies are taking us in short order. That assertion is debatable – because I don’t think we do. There is zero chance of tech advance panning out as planned for anyone. It is nothing to do with political systems, capitalism or socialism or crony communism, or choices made by individuals. It is to do with the nature of tech, the trajectory which is essentially beyond human agency.
Scott Carson
3 years ago
I’d agree that the commercially driven agenda of “digital ghosts” is an unnerving prospect. But in a crude way, isn’t that what we do already, with photos, videos, diaries etc of those who have died? I recorded a couple of chats with a dying friend in 2019, just brief discussions about his life and work. His widow listens to them regularly, and for that matter so do I. This new development seems rather like a logical extension of that.
I think it’s the difference between an actual recording of what the dear departed actually said, and an AI simulation of a thing they might have said.
Richard Pinch
3 years ago
I think there are serious ethical issues here that need to be unpacked. Let’s assume for the moment that there is agreement that such a service is sound in principle (a point well worth exploring in itself). Given that such a service. would have a huge effect on someone’s emotional or spiritual condition, we presume that it would at least need to be accurate: that is, that the behaviour of the digital replication of the deceased should express the same sentiments that the deceased really would have in real life. What scientific validity could be legitimately be claimed for such an assertion? Where is the research that validates it? I don’t see anything in the patent to support that.
Seb Dakin
3 years ago
At the risk of sounding all sci-fi, imagine if an immensely respected political leader, someone like Nelson Mandela, gets one of these post-mortem AI makeovers. Do current political leaders go to him/it for advice? What do him/it’s followers do when current political leaders do something different from what ‘Nelson-in-heaven’ would have done. It’s all very well talking about bereaved spouses getting comforted etc but the implications here are truly huge.
Now that’s scary! haha Even more because it actually makes sense, as we get further and further away from reality and time in the digital world. Also reminds me of Harari’s Homo Deus and the human pursuit for immortality – now openly declared and stablished as a goal.
Prashant Kotak
3 years ago
My overarching view is that pretty much all of humanity has *never* known what it actually is, which is what creates the dissonance between what humans think they are and what agency they think they possess, and what algorithms and gene-decoding are subsequently deciding they actually are. But the fact that the algorithms and the gene-crackers are holding up this mirror to humanity, creates feedback loops. If humans care to look at these different reflections of themselves, they will react and change themselves – full scale self-hacking when the bio-edit and mind-machine interface technologies eventually allow. Potentially in directions that are outright nihilistic.
Douglas Redmayne
3 years ago
What a dreary lament. If I wish to create my own online world nobody has the right to stop me.
It all sounds rather like the technological equivalent of a Victorian seance. But what I want to know is, where do I go to buy the advertising space? Just imagine the scene: “Yes, dear, we’re all so happy here on the Other Side — because we all use Brand X washing powder!”
Brilliant article. “The more we come to expect an online world tailored to individual desire, the less willing we’ll be to compromise on a shared world offline.” If only the whole world could see this and not only the profiteers hurtling us towards dehumanized, dystopian division and disaster.
You said everything I wanted to. Just here to appreciate the comment and congratulate the writer aswell
This is all very reminiscent of Charlie Brookner’s “Be Right Back” – where the bereaved woman ends up sticking the deceased partner’s robot in the attic because it couldn’t truly reflect the real person’s spirit.
Yes. My first thought reading the beginning of the article: BLACK MIRROR AGAIN
“…We should not welcome this development…”
That assumes humanity has agency over the direction the algorithmic and gene-edit technologies are taking us in short order. That assertion is debatable – because I don’t think we do. There is zero chance of tech advance panning out as planned for anyone. It is nothing to do with political systems, capitalism or socialism or crony communism, or choices made by individuals. It is to do with the nature of tech, the trajectory which is essentially beyond human agency.
I’d agree that the commercially driven agenda of “digital ghosts” is an unnerving prospect. But in a crude way, isn’t that what we do already, with photos, videos, diaries etc of those who have died? I recorded a couple of chats with a dying friend in 2019, just brief discussions about his life and work. His widow listens to them regularly, and for that matter so do I. This new development seems rather like a logical extension of that.
I think it’s the difference between an actual recording of what the dear departed actually said, and an AI simulation of a thing they might have said.
I think there are serious ethical issues here that need to be unpacked. Let’s assume for the moment that there is agreement that such a service is sound in principle (a point well worth exploring in itself). Given that such a service. would have a huge effect on someone’s emotional or spiritual condition, we presume that it would at least need to be accurate: that is, that the behaviour of the digital replication of the deceased should express the same sentiments that the deceased really would have in real life. What scientific validity could be legitimately be claimed for such an assertion? Where is the research that validates it? I don’t see anything in the patent to support that.
At the risk of sounding all sci-fi, imagine if an immensely respected political leader, someone like Nelson Mandela, gets one of these post-mortem AI makeovers. Do current political leaders go to him/it for advice? What do him/it’s followers do when current political leaders do something different from what ‘Nelson-in-heaven’ would have done.
It’s all very well talking about bereaved spouses getting comforted etc but the implications here are truly huge.
Now that’s scary! haha
Even more because it actually makes sense, as we get further and further away from reality and time in the digital world. Also reminds me of Harari’s Homo Deus and the human pursuit for immortality – now openly declared and stablished as a goal.
My overarching view is that pretty much all of humanity has *never* known what it actually is, which is what creates the dissonance between what humans think they are and what agency they think they possess, and what algorithms and gene-decoding are subsequently deciding they actually are. But the fact that the algorithms and the gene-crackers are holding up this mirror to humanity, creates feedback loops. If humans care to look at these different reflections of themselves, they will react and change themselves – full scale self-hacking when the bio-edit and mind-machine interface technologies eventually allow. Potentially in directions that are outright nihilistic.
What a dreary lament. If I wish to create my own online world nobody has the right to stop me.