←back to thread

1103 points MaxLeiter | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lordnacho ◴[] No.45125819[source]
It's the internet. When you talk to people online, it often descends into pettiness. When you talk to people in the real world, that rarely happens. But it's much easier to talk online, so people get the wrong impression.

You should talk to strangers. It's never gone wrong for me. Most people have a warmth and agreeableness that comes out when you are there with them, talking about stuff. There's also the interesting effect that people will give you their innermost secrets, knowing you won't tell anyone (I actually met a serial killer who did this, heh). For instance I was on a long haul flight earlier this year, and my neighbour told me everything about her divorce. Like a kind of therapy.

I also find when I have a real disagreement with someone, it's a lot easier when you're face-to-face. For instance, I have friends who are religious, in a real way, ie they actually think there's a god who created the earth and wants us to live a certain way. Being there in person keeps me from ridiculing them like I might on an internet forum, but it also keeps them from condemning me to hell.

So folks, practice talking to people. Much of what's wrong in the current world is actually loneliness, having no outlet for your expressions.

replies(25): >>45125920 #>>45125956 #>>45126262 #>>45126445 #>>45126579 #>>45126589 #>>45126731 #>>45126751 #>>45127695 #>>45127880 #>>45128103 #>>45128233 #>>45128270 #>>45128327 #>>45128466 #>>45128715 #>>45129915 #>>45130748 #>>45131076 #>>45131239 #>>45131314 #>>45135104 #>>45135605 #>>45147621 #>>45152872 #
ChrisMarshallNY ◴[] No.45126751[source]
There's definitely an aspect of "dehumanization," when it comes to remote communication (not just the Internet, but I think store-and-forward leaches the most humanity, compared to realtime).

It's the having time to consider responses, that I think actually makes it more difficult to accept the person on the other end as "human," more than the physical separation. You can see this in formal debates, where the emotional feedback is strictly regulated.

I've actually met a number of killers (long story for another venue), and will probably continue to do so, for the remainder of my life. I even call some of them friends. I enjoy the story, and accept it as true, because I have heard much more unbelievable true stories.

replies(2): >>45126830 #>>45126868 #
sentinelsignal ◴[] No.45126868[source]
The dehumanisation of online dialogue is interesting. Is it because of 'anonymity' or is there more at play?
replies(7): >>45126918 #>>45126974 #>>45127003 #>>45127100 #>>45127164 #>>45129008 #>>45129925 #
9rx ◴[] No.45127003[source]
Dehumanization is a poor framing, really. It was never humanized in the first place.

Sure, those of us who have a technical understanding understand that it is likely that there are humans involved as an implementation detail, but from the user perspective there is no other human to be seen. If the technical backend were replaced by a sufficiently capable LLM (or whatever technology) absolutely nothing about the user experience would change. From the user perspective, it is a solitary activity.

Human interaction hasn't gone away. Online discussion is a different tool for a different job.

replies(3): >>45128557 #>>45132694 #>>45181323 #
jv22222 ◴[] No.45128557[source]
I never thought about it this way. That technically every internet interaction is solo. Mind bending.
replies(1): >>45129246 #
rapnie ◴[] No.45129246[source]
But much of internet interaction isn't solo, in all those places where online and offline have connections. There will be a ton of dehumanization once in the morning we type a quick and lazy "/greet Mary" on the console and the AI agent takes over fully, sends a personalised email to Mary in my voice, and adds a "Welcome back from vacation!" note, after consulting my agent-managed calendar. Fully decoupling us from each other.
replies(1): >>45132506 #
1. balamatom ◴[] No.45132506[source]
...and on the other side Mary's agent would summarize your greeting as part of her regular notification digest. There would be no gradient. You and your correspondent would continue to pay equivalent proportion of available attention to each other; thus you would remain equally human as before.

At least relative to each other (and to each of the rest of your contacts.)

It's one's idea of humanness that will be substituted piecemeal by a "doppelganger concept", as a result of the perceptual decoupling provided by ever-thicker interfaces. That concept would continue to fulfill the exact same function in one's life that formerly would've been fulfilled by one's previous opinions on "what it means to be human" (if any).

Happens all the time, things changing people's minds. Happens surreptitiously, too. Of course, it's more comfortable to consider at least our inner lives remain inviolate to the vagaries of technocapital - but where could all their content come from, other than entirely from the outside world, same one that software was proclaimed to be "eating"?

Subjectively, you'd hardly (if ever) experience that kind of "world model spoofing" as anything close to a distinctly recognizable perceptual phenomenon (since it's language-based anyway). Rather, you'd continue to experience everything as the usual "being a person comprehending a world" bit - and, as ever, flavored by whatever life-scripts you've been allocated.

On average, however, the substitution would result in effects as simple as the population allocating that much more of its resources to, say, the organization representing the machinic quasi-intelligence in question - the one that has interposed itself as normative communication medium by providing useful summaries.

Or, not as simple.

It's already ended up very much like that "isn't there someone you forgot to ask" meme. Except the 3rd party pictured as JC, should rather be labeled "VC".