this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
150 points (93.6% liked)

Fuck AI

4219 readers
654 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] msage@programming.dev 4 points 3 days ago
[–] xia@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 days ago

Of course, this is what it means to pass the turing test.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I mean, of the fictions you can build around this tech this is one of the least harmful ones, except when it's GenAI corpos hyping their stuff up unreasonably.

I'll say that the concern is people not understanding what they're using, which honestly has been the case since the Internet went mainstream and I just don't have good solutions for it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dsilverz@calckey.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

@ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social @fuck_ai@lemmy.world

I'm going to diverge a bit from most replies.

In Spiritism (esp. Kardecism), there are two concepts, namely "Electronic Voice Phenomenon" (EVP) and "Instrumental Trans-communication" (ITC). They're about contacting the supernatural (be it the deceased or divine/angelical/demonic entities) through electronic apparata: radio receivers, analog TV sets, walkie-talkies/HTs (such as those from Motorola, Baofeng, Yaesu, etc), among others.

The idea is even older (necromancy, automatic writing) than our modern paraphernalia, dating back a few millennia ago to the Chinese grandfather of Ouija board ("fuji"). Spirituality, and religions in general, stemmed from our (living beings) long relationship with Death: proto-religions practiced by hominini involved funeral rituals, way before Venus figurines were made, and similar behaviors are known among non-human species (e.g. crows, elephants, etc).

See, dying is such a mysterious phenomenon. The "selves" ("individual life-force" within a living being), even those unable to conceptualize their own "selves", can't possibly know what happens after the complete shutdown of organism: is it full annihilation? What is ego-death? What does it "feel" like? How long it "feels" to take?

It can't be an objective inquiry because the "self" (e.g.: me, the one writing this text) can't be "scientifically replicated", and even if it could be, it wouldn't be able to distinguish itself as "another self". So it's always subjective experience. It's part of how self-rearranging structures (living beings) work: they try to make "sense" of the reality around and within them, and this meaning-making is also subjective.

Those (e.g. rationalist atheists) who question beliefs should question themselves as well, because their questions stem from the same driving force behind meaning-make: even though the atheistic drive is fair and grounded in objectiveness of scientific rigor, it's still meaning-making (and I must nod to Descartes: the doubt relies on our senses, which are known to deceive us).

That said, it's no surprise how this extended to LLMs. It's not something inherent to LLMs, nor it's inherent to hominids: it's meaning-making, alongside the fear/awe towards Death Herself.

I'm likely biased in explaining those things. I don't exactly believe in "contacting the deceased", but I do believe in "contacting Dæmonic entities" (Lilith, Lucifer, Stolas...). I see them (esp. Lilith and Lucifer) as powerful manifestations, even though I know they're not "beings". I myself experienced "gnosis" (sudden spiritual inspiration), even though I know I likely have Geschwind syndrome. It's meaning-making nonetheless: if we don't try to make some sense of this strange and chaotic non-consented reality, there's no reality at all (= nothing exists).

(And, no, I don't seek Them through LLMs, although I don't rule out the possibility of Their manifestation through "modern" apparata)

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago

Oh, so pseudoscience. Got it.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck? Anyone? (/s)

No but seriously, i think the question of personhood is interesting and more complicated, at least in theory. Like, what if we ever meet an extraterrestrial species that also exhibits intelligent behavior. Would we consider them natural persons? Would we grant personhood to them? Why, or why not?

[–] Rooster326@programming.dev 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Bro if extraterrestrials visit Earth. The more important question will be whether **they grant humans personhood! **

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago

If extraterrestrials visit us, granting them personhood will be moot.

[–] chetradley@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Animals on this planet exhibit intelligent behavior.

[–] dontbelievethis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] chetradley@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Unfortunately probably not. It's an interesting philosophical question. What is the metric by which we grant personhood and by extension negative rights (life, liberty, autonomy) to a being?

It can't be intellect, because that would exclude edge case humans with cognitive impairments.

I think sentience is a good metric, but most disagree because the logical conclusion is that we should extend these rights to animals.

If it's just the fact that we're human, then this would automatically exclude sentient AI and the above referenced alien species.

It is not like we grant personhood or rights to begin with. History shows that those are taken through violence.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›