Hacker News Reader

Comment by patcon | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if feeling and intuition will become the most prized, once explaining and sophistry toward any conclusion becomes something any bot can do...?

Right now, we think of feeling as second class, but I wonder if that's more because we have let it go feral, and left it unprotected from predatory actors and systems -- advertising, consumerism, even politics. We don't protect our minds from attacks on our feeling systems (e.g., we don't cover therapy as a public health measure), and so maybe we've just gotten used to giving a pretty poor assessment of its capacity.

If we institutionalized protection of intuition like we protect our ability to reason, maybe we would think more highly of that part of ourselves...

View on HN

Intuition is just latent data processing, can be done by machines.

Feeling is a steering of the processing, I don't really see how it will help you accumulate power, resources or status compared to just processing.

Well.. that part is simple, technically speaking. Being able to make others feel can override their processing. But, as other posters noted above, that is just advertising and politics.

I see, I mean from an extrinsic transactional perspective where you are an actor in the world to exploit and be exploited, you're right.

From a perspective where latent thinking and feelings are put against the machine and the goal is resource and power accumulation, I don't think so.

Maybe. In some potential future variant, where machine's will is law AND, this is important, humans have no real standing, you are probably correct. That said, that assumes a lot of interesting changes in how we operate in general including at least temporary introduction of mediators, whose sole job it is keep other humans at arms length ( ie. no other human to confide in ). Again, not impossible.. I am just not certain this is the path.

I am thinking that intelligence/information enables better decisions for most goals that have to do with survival, power, status, resource accumulation.

It's in my eyes inevitable that either the superpower, or some adversaries ignore the risks and develop such machines to achieve some of all of the goals mentioned.

I also think that mediators are not necessary, it's just a means to the goal of maintaining power/resources/etc. If there are other cheaper more effective means, like providing virtual companions, or eliminate people, or whatever else, that would be the way to go about that.

From game theory perspective, it does seem like almost a given doesn't it. Hmm. Lets consider a hypothetical ( you don't have to answer, but just consider it ). If you could build one, would you. That might give us a closer idea of how much of a risk it may be.

I am a part of building one at one of the superscalars atm as it pays me well and ensures my own short-term survival/resource/status accumulation, and its interesting.

In that case, we don't really have to worry about hypotheticals. It is reasonable to assume yours is not the only one, which is bound to make it fairly interesting for everyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com