Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Thai_Lord t1_isscy0x wrote

No it hasn't.

You're talking to numbers that are following a formula in real time.

81

KurushSoter t1_issdom9 wrote

This is bizarrely similar to the Christian argument against necromancy

4

intentamos_de_nuevo t1_issgxvw wrote

They didn't argue against anything tho...

5

TripSackNKickBack t1_issmni4 wrote

And I bet you think Christianity has no ties to psychedelic mushrooms or weed because it’s never mentioned in the Bible...

1

intentamos_de_nuevo t1_ist4wok wrote

Wtf are these comments. Are you all bots? This conversation makes no sense and has nothing to do with the first comment in the comment thread

3

KurushSoter t1_isshl3u wrote

Did you know that things you haven’t heard of, can actually exist? Crazy, I know!

−3

intentamos_de_nuevo t1_ist4pt3 wrote

Are you a bot? That makes no sense

2

KurushSoter t1_ist573c wrote

Are you a brain trauma victim?

−2

intentamos_de_nuevo t1_ist7rfy wrote

Can you tell me what necromancy had to do with the first comment in this comment thread? And what theyre arguing against?

First comment:

>No it hasn't.

>You're talking to numbers that are following a formula in real time.

No mention of Christianity. No argument against necromancy.

Your reply:

> This is bizarrely similar to the Christian argument against necromancy

3

[deleted] t1_issedin wrote

[removed]

−19

KurushSoter t1_issemb0 wrote

The Christian prohibition was based on the idea that you weren’t really talking to your loved ones, you could be talking to anything, including things that behave more or less automatically. Why are you so hostile?

Oh look. You’re just a dipshit stoner that knows nothing about religious history. Have fun.

6

[deleted] t1_issf7bl wrote

[removed]

−10

Richey48 t1_issfnt2 wrote

You've taken quite a hostile intrest in this. Can't wait to see you reply to every comment about it on this thread to assert some pseudointelligence (like you already are LOL)

8

[deleted] t1_issfrf6 wrote

[removed]

−5

Richey48 t1_issft5k wrote

What a life you must live

7

[deleted] t1_issfv2y wrote

[removed]

2

TripSackNKickBack t1_issmrrr wrote

The ignorant admittance of not having a life. Classic

2

Thai_Lord t1_isso2i1 wrote

I felt it more arrogant to explain my life than appropriate to say something as ignorant as that. Classic.

1

[deleted] t1_isso6oe wrote

[removed]

2

Thai_Lord t1_issoeaj wrote

You understand the hypocrisy of your statement?

You're talking to a troll on Reddit, you inept fuck.

1

[deleted] t1_issogrq wrote

[removed]

1

Thai_Lord t1_issoqq7 wrote

Lol. Try again at what? Hypocrisy for the sake of hypocrisy?

Enlighten me, please.

1

[deleted] t1_issouoc wrote

[removed]

1

Thai_Lord t1_issp9w7 wrote

"Average cop out after getting insulted on Reddit."

Cool, dude. Project much? I can tell you're trying real hard lol

What else you got? More nothings?

1

[deleted] t1_isspikf wrote

[removed]

1

Thai_Lord t1_isspmx5 wrote

That you're still responding? 😁

1

TripSackNKickBack t1_isspsp0 wrote

Sorry, do I need to explain what the “reply” button is for? Lol you really are that stupid, it’s kind of astounding.

Just more insults with little to no intelligence from you. I’ll be waiting, but it’s kinda sad that you have nothing smart to say and keep getting wrung out by a troll lmao

1

Thai_Lord t1_issq7am wrote

Yeah lol. You totally got me.

Do you feel better?

1

Thai_Lord t1_issqev8 wrote

Ahhhhh. I was like "why is this kid stuck at age 16."

You're a psychonaut kid.

1

TripSackNKickBack t1_issqje8 wrote

Ooooo and now you’re going through my profile because you have nothing better to say? That’s sad lmao 😭 REALLY tells me how much you lack in intelligence...

1

KurushSoter t1_issiha9 wrote

Are you just big mad that you think I’m a Christian? Moms not making you go to church anymore little dude, you can let it go

3

[deleted] t1_istpbbt wrote

[removed]

1

KurushSoter t1_istpdmo wrote

If you can’t follow the conversation, you shouldn’t comment.

1

Unusualus t1_istu8cv wrote

You are not even on the topic jackass!

1

KurushSoter t1_istv33q wrote

If you can’t follow the conversation, you shouldn’t comment.

1

Unusualus t1_istwl04 wrote

>!You are not even on the topic jackass! !<

1

Turbulent-Macaron372 t1_issj3ux wrote

I love seeing someone get dogpiled over an innocuous comment, and I love it when someone is pressed on just slightly and starts talking like an anime villain. Solid thread guys 😁👍

1

silikus t1_issgwb5 wrote

"not talking to them, just random numbers" "Not talking to their former self" aka "not talking to the person you knew, but something new"

You can see the parallel here, yet you chose to be a hostile douche by calling them dumb and now are trying to claim moral high ground. Most likely because of some deep seeded disdain for the parallel

5

SteakHoagie666 t1_issjesz wrote

It's uh not. That's kinda the extreme fantasy version of it. Necromancy in religion can be seen as just speaking to the dead. Or 'divining' answers from the dead.

It's seen not a great idea because you could be talking to anything. Demon, yourself, another entity, or whatever.

I think the parallel they were drawing was simply the fact when you "talk to the dead" it's not really them or "may not be".

1

Enkundae t1_isspqm6 wrote

Eh. Get those numbers within a certain ballpark and the difference becomes more philosophical than anything. It’s pretty much the core of cybernetics, as in the actual scientific field rather than the colloquial pop-culture definition of the term.

3

Retlawst t1_isu39qg wrote

Shit becomes real once the heuristic mappings achieve 61.8% saturation

2

Thai_Lord t1_isspxat wrote

Jesus christ lolol

1

yuormomsgaydog t1_iswih2t wrote

The difference between him and a Reddit-tier tech chatbot is more philosophical than anything.

−1

AJC_10_29 t1_isslssg wrote

I knew right away that headline was clickbait.

1

KungFuHamster t1_isskcrk wrote

It will be on the same level as the "art" produced by scanning thousands or millions of artworks, i.e. garbage.

−2

MrNobody312 t1_issey2y wrote

Go watch black mirror and you'll know why this is a bad idea.

27

PraiseThePun81 t1_issf8d8 wrote

That's exactly what came to mind when I clicked on this topic.

9

PickForMe t1_issftvr wrote

Any chance you know the episode number or name related so I dont have to watch them all to find it?

5

MrNobody312 t1_issgdek wrote

I believe it's worth it to watch all of them -they are pretty great. But it's S2E1.

6

PickForMe t1_issn9sz wrote

Did some searching,

Season 2 episode 1.
"Be Right Back"
The episode tells the story of Martha (Hayley Atwell), a young woman whose boyfriend Ash Starmer (Domhnall Gleeson) is killed in a car accident. As she mourns him, she discovers that technology now allows her to communicate with an artificial intelligence imitating Ash, and reluctantly decides to try it. "Be Right Back" had two sources of inspiration: the question of whether to delete a dead friend's phone number from one's contacts, and the idea that Twitter posts could be made by software mimicking dead people.
"Be Right Back" explores the theme of grief; it is a melancholy story similar to the previous episode, "The Entire History of You". The episode received positive reviews, with the performances of Atwell and Gleeson receiving universal acclaim. Some critics believe it to be the best episode of Black Mirror, though the ending was met with criticism. Several real-life artificial intelligence products have been compared to the one shown in the episode, including a Luka chatbot that was partially inspired by the episode, and a planned Amazon Alexa feature designed to imitate dead loved ones.

2

hotshotnate1 t1_issgt3m wrote

I forgot Black Mirror was real life and not simply a tv show.

3

Benjammin_Kenobi t1_issi23w wrote

I had a buddy from high school that used to be into the occult and used a black mirror to contact his dead cousin. He went off the deep end and got into Reiki and stuff which is cool but he tried to leave the mirror at my house wrapped in velvet and shit.

I was like nah man come back and get this thing right now. I was going to burn it outside but I heard that didn't always work and it may release something on my property lol

1

billjv t1_isshc7e wrote

The biggest problem that I see with this line of tech is that it could be used to take advantage of grieving people at their most vulnerable. There is a real danger in this from companies who profit off grief and death. But I think the most disconcerting thing about the tech is that it's going to get so good that it would be easy for a living person to become dependent on it. Addictive in the extreme. Can you imagine losing your wife or long-time girlfriend, and then having a digital representation to console you after their death? I'm not sure if in your grieving state you would even care that it's fake. You would just go to it, because it's better than the void they left behind for you in their death.

Now that I've gone and said the scary part out loud, the advantages to this tech are also very inviting. Having a "digital encyclopedia" of a person for future generations is absolutely incredible. Archiving our lives through interviews is a great idea, especially for those not prone to talking much about themselves. I would absolutely love to get to know my great grandmother more - she was a pioneer and an amazing woman. We have a book about her put together by family, but not much else.

One other aspect is that the digital self is only as good as the original self keeps it up to date. Old entries from someone that only get seen 10-20 years after they die are not a realistic picture of that person if they stopped or slowed updating in later years of their life.

All in all, I think the advantages could outweigh the disadvantages - but strict boundaries and guardrails need to be in place along with the tech so that people in their worst moments aren't taken for a ride.

19

Bomixes t1_isstp7o wrote

I agree , I have a friend who recently lost their father, the mom keeps visiting the grave site and gets upset at her kids because they don’t visit everyday. And when the site gets leaves and debris, she is there to make sure it is clean. To some it would be a nice one time thing, to others it would be a scary addiction.

6

toetx2 t1_isszysf wrote

Might be a generation or cultural thing, keeping the grave neat is a way of showing respect.

But yes, it becomes a problem when it looks like an addiction. It sounds harsh, but people that can't move on need help, or else they end up stuck in a depression that might be deadly as well.

6

TerpenesByMS t1_isw436u wrote

Good thing this exact scenario has been oreconceived in Sci-Fi. Black Mirror has a decent take, can't remember the name of the movie...

1

Xanneros t1_issdaqu wrote

Only if I can talk to like very distant relatives like this long line of Irish bards and poets I am descended from allegedly.

10

Sillbinger t1_issgwn7 wrote

Same here, I just want to go back a few hundred generations and ask them if they could just, not.

3

ProjectShamrock t1_issilrc wrote

This is less impressive than you think:

> HereAfter, whose work starts with subjects when they are still alive, asks them questions for hours—about everything from their earliest memories to their first date to what they believe will happen after they die.

This is just an evolution of you sitting down to record audio interviewing someone and asking them questions. All this does is allow you to ask questions and it will replay relevant segments of it and maybe be able to extrapolate a little bit based on AI. They're not recreating anything of deceased people, they're creating chatbots of currently living people that will be able to persist after the person is gone.

5

avatarname t1_itfte3f wrote

I mean yeah, we are not living in sci-fi yet, but AI today can convincingly recreate voices of people and rearrange words in sentences etc. So indeed it kinda is a glorified chatbot, but I think the more complex chatbots become, the less distinguishable from the real thing they become. Just that I don't think it is possible to recreate a feel of a person from hours, even long hours, of conversations to record them, even if they took all their reddit/facebook/twitter/youtube posts and comments, it still would not be enough

1

PickForMe t1_issfy5p wrote

I see this comes with a monthy fee. What happens when the person who sets it up dies? Does the bill still need to be paid to acsess content?

4

For_Never_Dreams t1_issi31i wrote

your loved ones will just have 30 second ads where they try to sell you shit before you can interact with their memories.

"Hi honey! It's good to talk to you again. Our conversation today is brought to you by Liberty Mutual. You know when I was alive I wish I had bought a life insurance policy to protect my family..."

10

WokkitUp t1_issieoz wrote

You pay to hear them from beyond the grave effortlessly dunk on your appearance and criticize your career choices.

3

Ardothbey t1_issjua0 wrote

This is exactly what all mediums do. Take advantage of people that are grieving. Note in the story how “slowly they began to sound like themselves”. That’s the listeners mind convincing them of what they want to hear. Folks this is as fake as those car warranty calls.

3

pyrulyto t1_issh275 wrote

IMHO The same way we were when technology let us see realistic images of our dead relatives, hear things they said before they died, and even watch those images in movement with the sound; no one thinks these replace dead relatives or give experiences with them (other than the personal experience of seeing photos/videos or hearing recordings and remembering/projecting other things).

2

KittenKoder t1_issh8u2 wrote

Okay, this AI tech uses the same method as cold reading does for "psychics", in which the person interacting with the AI is leading it by giving it more information to develop believable but false memories. The potential as a therapy tool for things like survivor's guilt is pretty big, but it is not a copy of the original, it's what the person interacting with it thinks the original was.

2

Inbredfkfest t1_issiilt wrote

Reading this ... just aches my heart thinking about the impending death of our loved ones. Something unavoidable, painful, perpetual, and impending. Everyone have to go through this pain someday. I'll never be ready for this, whenever it may be.

2

Mysterious-Island-71 t1_issinh1 wrote

I’m so ready. This year I lost my uncle and my grandma and I was extremely close to them they were like my first family honestly. I miss them so much every day I want to hear their voices again so badly. You have no idea what I would do just to hear them again because we couldn’t get into their phones because we’re locked out.. so it would be amazing nice..

2

SpaceMarine324 t1_issis0q wrote

I hardly believe this is talking to dead loved ones, it's more a closer attempt than all our rituals and practice from ancient times though.

Maybe one day we can get significantly closer. What are we but complex computers? I bet once smart people figure out what our numbers look like, we'll have way more significant problems than death to worry about

2

Alarmed-Accident-716 t1_issjnub wrote

This should not come out, this has bad news written all over it.

2

Forlorn_Woodsman t1_issjpr4 wrote

I want to see them re-create philosophers from the past and give them TV personae and then have like a CNN roundtable with Nietzsche, Socrates, and Joan of Arc but it’s still moderated by Fareed Zakaria

2

beachpelicans420 t1_issjt7p wrote

the dead cant talk. the dead will never come back to life. this tech is a scam, for the love of the gods go out and visit their graves sit down and talk to them about your life...the dead are lonely and often forgotten

2

billybafka t1_isslzhm wrote

Lmfao im good, bc it definitely isnt your “relative” youre talking to

2

wmax19 t1_isufpyw wrote

Wow this is an interesting technology but what I wonder is does this delay inevitable grief? Also what are the ethical implications of this?

2

__Shake__ t1_issdloe wrote

who would actually want to do this? is it healthy to pretend something fake is real just to be comforted? back in my day our belief in "god" was enough

1

[deleted] t1_issevzd wrote

[removed]

0

__Shake__ t1_issfcv1 wrote

yes that was literally the point of my comment

5

[deleted] t1_issfmjo wrote

[removed]

−4

UniqueName39 t1_issg3wm wrote

Bruh who uses “back in my day” in a serious manner nowadays?

5

Oi_Scout666 t1_issgrij wrote

Why are you discussing the rhetoric instead of the subject?

3

__Shake__ t1_issh4ws wrote

ever heard of Occam's Razor? You understood what I was saying, but assumed I was being an idiot coz who would literally imply belief in god is the same as believing something fake is real? But the simple explanation is that that is exactly what I was saying. Don't overthink it

3

Thai_Lord t1_isshlqb wrote

Just because you used that term, respect.

I was attacking your argument out of curiosity.

Yuh caught me.

2

__Shake__ t1_isshyl6 wrote

no worries. I debated putting a '/sarcasm' tag at the end of my initial comment but decided against it as leaving it off might fool actual theists into thinking I was on their side and upvoting.

2

FuturologyBot t1_issdqk8 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/el_gee:

The reporter talks about how real the experience was for them: "At first, they sounded distant and tinny, as if they were huddled around a phone in a prison cell. But as we chatted, they slowly started to sound more like themselves. They told me personal stories that I’d never heard. (...) And for a moment I forgot I wasn’t really speaking to my parents at all, but to their digital replicas."

It's kind of cool to think that we're getting to a point where you can have realistic conversation - and while I'm not sure how I feel about talking to dead relatives, this could be great for immersive storytelling, virtual companions, that sort of thing.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/y7381v/technology_that_lets_us_speak_to_our_dead/issbh3o/

1

FinalDungeon t1_issds6x wrote

And the continue infantilization of society takes a massive leap forward.

Fuck off. People die, have the balls to say that shit when they are alive and be an adult and let them go.

If you think this is healthy, you’re wrong.

1

heybart t1_isumdto wrote

I'll know it's realistic if the AI mom criticizes everything I do and uses my every screw up to put me and my dad's side of the family down.

1

el_gee OP t1_issbh3o wrote

The reporter talks about how real the experience was for them: "At first, they sounded distant and tinny, as if they were huddled around a phone in a prison cell. But as we chatted, they slowly started to sound more like themselves. They told me personal stories that I’d never heard. (...) And for a moment I forgot I wasn’t really speaking to my parents at all, but to their digital replicas."

It's kind of cool to think that we're getting to a point where you can have realistic conversation - and while I'm not sure how I feel about talking to dead relatives, this could be great for immersive storytelling, virtual companions, that sort of thing.

0

Thai_Lord t1_isseob8 wrote

Just download any A.I. program. It does feel strange at first, but far from supernatural. It's just new to humans.

4