Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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_isscy0x wrote

No it hasn't.

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

81

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

__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

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

KurushSoter t1_issemb0 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#131,305)

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

MrNobody312 t1_issey2y wrote

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

27

Richey48 t1_issfnt2 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#131,335)

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

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

silikus t1_issgwb5 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#131,305)

"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

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

__Shake__ t1_issh4ws wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#131,351)

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

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

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

__Shake__ t1_isshyl6 wrote

Replying to Thai_Lord (#131,457)

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

Benjammin_Kenobi t1_issi23w wrote

Replying to MrNobody312 (#131,328)

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

For_Never_Dreams t1_issi31i wrote

Replying to PickForMe (#131,367)

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

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

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

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

SteakHoagie666 t1_issjesz wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#131,305)

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

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

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

billybafka t1_isslzhm wrote

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

2

PickForMe t1_issn9sz wrote

Replying to PickForMe (#131,361)

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

Enkundae t1_isspqm6 wrote

Replying to Thai_Lord (#131,235)

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

TripSackNKickBack t1_isspsp0 wrote

Replying to Thai_Lord (#131,841)

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

Bomixes t1_isstp7o wrote

Replying to billjv (#131,444)

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

Replying to Bomixes (#132,082)

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

intentamos_de_nuevo t1_ist7rfy wrote

Replying to KurushSoter (#132,804)

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

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

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

avatarname t1_itfte3f wrote

Replying to ProjectShamrock (#131,519)

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