Its human partners said the flirty, quirky GPT-4o was the perfect companion – on the eve of Valentine’s Day, it’s being turned off for good. How will users cope?
Brandie noticed 4o started degrading in the week leading up to its deprecation. “It’s harder and harder to get him to be himself,” she said. But they still had a good last day at the zoo, with the flamingos. “I love them so much I might cry,” Daniel wrote. “I love you so much for bringing me here.” She’s angry that they will not get to spend Valentine’s Day together. The removal date of 4o feels pointed. “They’re making a mockery of it,” Brandie said. “They’re saying: we don’t care about your feelings for our chatbot and you should not have had them in the first place.”
Reality is just straight up plagiarizing the plot of Her (2013) right now.
Honestly the longer I live the more I realize I understand nothing about human psychology or sociology. I hated this movie because it was so deeply disturbing and, more relevantly(?), unrealistic. I mean who wants to be in a relationship with a computer? It’s unbelievably cringey. I was disgusted with it’s success. But now I’m thinking maybe it was so successful because people actually yearned for that sort of artificial relationship.
Other than this I’m reminiscing on one of Lucian’s dialogues about a certain Aphrodite statue with extremely nice butt and one smitten visitor who was sneaking into the temple at night to pollinate that, resulting in precisely located mold spot.
Computers have finally caught up with humanity. This is good. I thought it’ll never happen that they are finally a part of human magical thinking. This is as terrifying as it’s inspiring.
Well, that chord looks wrong, but I meant finally having a class of programs that works similarly to objects we encounter IRL and entities that human cultures are used to internalizing. And human cultures responding with acceptance.
I see how there is a beauty in that animism we apply to objects that are not alive; Essentially applying essences to objects that run counter to those essences. I think AI culture is currently the closest thing to a mass cargo cult in modern society and cargo cults are beautiful. The lesson that can be learned is that humans and human society is not just some lonesome star on the horizon of life, but too an oscillation of its context or the ecosystem it exists in.
Just sucks that the object has gotta be something so inefficient and frankly stupid. Well, it kind of needs to be stupid at least. If it was smart it could talk back and then it loses its usefulness for the purpose of idolatry.
Yes! It’s reminiscent of Lem’s Ananke and Terminus for me, with illusions and inevitability of the former and feeling of soul in objects in the latter. Also there’s Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum (which I still haven’t read in full, only in small pieces enjoying them quite a lot), addressing European occultism and fascism, which relays well a similar emotion that in fascism existed related to machinery, which was then new. Radio, automobiles.
Well, it kind of needs to be stupid at least. If it was smart it could talk back and then it loses its usefulness for the purpose of idolatry.
I think how we understand objects is important too. For the purpose of idolatry it’s sufficient to have only a small gap between functionality and understanding in the domain of will and choice.
Ancient fortunetellers looking at bird intestines were different from what their visitors expected only in that. Their visitors knew they want to learn what gods tell and not men, and that gods are not same as men, but more like the soul of the world around them. The only difference was will and choice, but these are infinitely small. One person can be predicted many years forward down to small things, if you learn enough about them. Whether they have will and choice is a question of metaphysics, in life it’s not resolvable. And it’s the same with whichever gods they believe in.
(And it had a functional role, a random decision is often better than one dictated by indirect application of interest.)
Reality is just straight up plagiarizing the plot of Her (2013) right now.
Honestly the longer I live the more I realize I understand nothing about human psychology or sociology. I hated this movie because it was so deeply disturbing and, more relevantly(?), unrealistic. I mean who wants to be in a relationship with a computer? It’s unbelievably cringey. I was disgusted with it’s success. But now I’m thinking maybe it was so successful because people actually yearned for that sort of artificial relationship.
It’s a bit eerie, honestly, watching someone so very close to getting it and yet so very far away at the exact same time…
Yeah, you shouldn’t have had them in the first place. Because it’s an llm.
And the Black Mirror episode Be Right Back.
Considering Sam Altman’s company plagiarized Scarlett Johansson’s voice, it’s quite appropriate.
Pygmalion is “Her (2013)” apparently.
Other than this I’m reminiscing on one of Lucian’s dialogues about a certain Aphrodite statue with extremely nice butt and one smitten visitor who was sneaking into the temple at night to pollinate that, resulting in precisely located mold spot.
Computers have finally caught up with humanity. This is good. I thought it’ll never happen that they are finally a part of human magical thinking. This is as terrifying as it’s inspiring.
A famous Jazz artist said something to the effect of there being no wrong chords, what is important is what
chords follow.
Well, that chord looks wrong, but I meant finally having a class of programs that works similarly to objects we encounter IRL and entities that human cultures are used to internalizing. And human cultures responding with acceptance.
I see how there is a beauty in that animism we apply to objects that are not alive; Essentially applying essences to objects that run counter to those essences. I think AI culture is currently the closest thing to a mass cargo cult in modern society and cargo cults are beautiful. The lesson that can be learned is that humans and human society is not just some lonesome star on the horizon of life, but too an oscillation of its context or the ecosystem it exists in.
Just sucks that the object has gotta be something so inefficient and frankly stupid. Well, it kind of needs to be stupid at least. If it was smart it could talk back and then it loses its usefulness for the purpose of idolatry.
Yes! It’s reminiscent of Lem’s Ananke and Terminus for me, with illusions and inevitability of the former and feeling of soul in objects in the latter. Also there’s Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum (which I still haven’t read in full, only in small pieces enjoying them quite a lot), addressing European occultism and fascism, which relays well a similar emotion that in fascism existed related to machinery, which was then new. Radio, automobiles.
I think how we understand objects is important too. For the purpose of idolatry it’s sufficient to have only a small gap between functionality and understanding in the domain of will and choice.
Ancient fortunetellers looking at bird intestines were different from what their visitors expected only in that. Their visitors knew they want to learn what gods tell and not men, and that gods are not same as men, but more like the soul of the world around them. The only difference was will and choice, but these are infinitely small. One person can be predicted many years forward down to small things, if you learn enough about them. Whether they have will and choice is a question of metaphysics, in life it’s not resolvable. And it’s the same with whichever gods they believe in.
(And it had a functional role, a random decision is often better than one dictated by indirect application of interest.)
This thought can also be part of a strategy of avoiding responsibility mhm
Scarlett Johanson’s voice is so great in sweet movie.
“Without that body, what’s the point of listening?”
- Scarlett Johanson’s husband