I think it’s a bit too narrow to cite just addictive behavior but sure, we basically agree there, which makes me wonder why you made your initial point. Clearly, you can tell that these sorts of flattery machines that try to simulate human responses except anything you don’t want is stripped out and everything else that pleases you is added in can be bad for people, so when you have that same basic paradigm but the psychosis machine is hooked up to a detailed, lifelike robot for you to fuck, whether on the basis of it affectively wanting you to or not (or, frequently, going from one to the other while you continue fucking it all the same), suddenly those negative impacts on certain types of mentally vulnerable people disappear?
Say, totally unrelated, what do you think about media that, for example, eroticizes brutal sexual violence? Would you describe it as being a socially neutral thing? I know it’s the classic position of Hexbear that media is apolitical and doesn’t impact anything or anyone, so we shouldn’t bat an eye at the r___ and genocide simulators, but of course I want you to be able to speak for yourself.
I suppose what we have here is a clash of freedoms. The person prone to psychosis has their freedom to not have their mental state fucked with challenged by the existence of the machine, the person who is not prone to that has their freedom to own a sex machine challenged by banning or limiting access to the machine. When put into those terms, it seems that the sex machine itself is a silly thing and should be banned - but I’m not so sure. The person with a peanut allergy is threatened by the mass agriculture of peanuts, but we inherently recognize that banning all peanuts would be unfair to the vast majority of people who do not possess such an allergy. Thus “AI psychosis” should be educated about and guarded against as should other psychologically addictive behavior.
That question is framed ridiculously. The “classic” opinion on hexbear is most certainly not that all media is apolitical, what the fuck are you talking about. The question is to what degree media should be censored - I would argue that censorship in a modern context is best authored from the algorithm, so such content should only ever be available to those who specifically seek it out, but not that it’s creation or consumption should be criminalized. And to preempt the escalation that I know is coming next: obviously that logic doesn’t hold if someone was harmed in the creation of the media itself, which is and should remain illegal, or if the class of media is such that its proliferation would make enforcing the previous rule impossible, which is a real and predictable harm to society by a certain class of generated content that AI psychosis does not represent.
The person with a peanut allergy is threatened by the mass agriculture of peanuts, but we inherently recognize that banning all peanuts would be unfair to the vast majority of people who do not possess such an allergy.
I’m sure there are interesting points regarding nutrition and agriculture that could be made about peanuts, but from a lay perspective what I find to be an overwhelmingly salient difference is that it’s much easier to test for a peanut allergy, which of course does not cover the small minority of people who develop the allergy later in life (the more common version, pollen-food syndrome, is usually not seriously dangerous). That is not true about psychological issues, where yes you can look at psychosis (via much more intensive testing than peanut allergies) and put some people in the “definitely yes” category and most in the “almost certainly no (for now)” category, but there’s a much hazier boundary, even focusing on these two groups in the distribution and not the people who (so far) fall between.
I also think even beyond the diagnosis issue the matter of self-policing on not killing yourself with an allergen is not that similar to self-policing on being especially vulnerable to having the lying flattery robot loosen your grip on reality, for reasons that I would vaguely compare to but not equivocate with self-policing on consuming addictive substances.
Thus “AI psychosis” should be educated about and guarded against as should other psychologically addictive behavior.
A lot of this depends on if we’re talking about our present society or some imagined socialist one where there are regulations in place to prevent the product from being malicious. The trendy example is gambling. Obviously I don’t think people should be forbade from playing poker with their friends or whatever, but I don’t think mere education is enough of a guard to counterbalance the intensely predatory and ever-evolving practices of the industry, so we would need better substantiation on the “guarded against” part to take it seriously.
You can surely see how contemporary AI resembles this, where theoretically there are safeguards that could be put in place to make them much less dangerous, but we can’t count on that happening and should have some idea of what our stance on how the present versions should be treated is.
The “classic” opinion on hexbear is most certainly not that all media is apolitical, what the fuck are you talking about.
I was being facetious. I apologize for the confusion. I am very familiar with lengthy discussions on here about which media is reactionary and why.
And to preempt the escalation that I know is coming next: obviously that logic doesn’t hold if someone was harmed in the creation of the media itself, which is and should remain illegal
Contrary to your expectation, I at no point was going to bring up abuse materials, I understand that that’s a different subject and its reasons do not apply here.
or if the class of media is such that its proliferation would make enforcing the previous rule impossible, which is a real and predictable harm to society by a certain class of generated content that AI psychosis does not represent.
I don’t follow the allusion here, honestly, unless it’s a different gen-AI thing.
just to clear up the last thing I was alluding to, a common argument that I find salient as to banning generative CSAM where no actual persons were involved is that it makes detecting and policing actual CSAM much more difficult.
I think it’s a bit too narrow to cite just addictive behavior but sure, we basically agree there, which makes me wonder why you made your initial point. Clearly, you can tell that these sorts of flattery machines that try to simulate human responses except anything you don’t want is stripped out and everything else that pleases you is added in can be bad for people, so when you have that same basic paradigm but the psychosis machine is hooked up to a detailed, lifelike robot for you to fuck, whether on the basis of it affectively wanting you to or not (or, frequently, going from one to the other while you continue fucking it all the same), suddenly those negative impacts on certain types of mentally vulnerable people disappear?
Say, totally unrelated, what do you think about media that, for example, eroticizes brutal sexual violence? Would you describe it as being a socially neutral thing? I know it’s the classic position of Hexbear that media is apolitical and doesn’t impact anything or anyone, so we shouldn’t bat an eye at the r___ and genocide simulators, but of course I want you to be able to speak for yourself.
I suppose what we have here is a clash of freedoms. The person prone to psychosis has their freedom to not have their mental state fucked with challenged by the existence of the machine, the person who is not prone to that has their freedom to own a sex machine challenged by banning or limiting access to the machine. When put into those terms, it seems that the sex machine itself is a silly thing and should be banned - but I’m not so sure. The person with a peanut allergy is threatened by the mass agriculture of peanuts, but we inherently recognize that banning all peanuts would be unfair to the vast majority of people who do not possess such an allergy. Thus “AI psychosis” should be educated about and guarded against as should other psychologically addictive behavior.
That question is framed ridiculously. The “classic” opinion on hexbear is most certainly not that all media is apolitical, what the fuck are you talking about. The question is to what degree media should be censored - I would argue that censorship in a modern context is best authored from the algorithm, so such content should only ever be available to those who specifically seek it out, but not that it’s creation or consumption should be criminalized. And to preempt the escalation that I know is coming next: obviously that logic doesn’t hold if someone was harmed in the creation of the media itself, which is and should remain illegal, or if the class of media is such that its proliferation would make enforcing the previous rule impossible, which is a real and predictable harm to society by a certain class of generated content that AI psychosis does not represent.
I’m sure there are interesting points regarding nutrition and agriculture that could be made about peanuts, but from a lay perspective what I find to be an overwhelmingly salient difference is that it’s much easier to test for a peanut allergy, which of course does not cover the small minority of people who develop the allergy later in life (the more common version, pollen-food syndrome, is usually not seriously dangerous). That is not true about psychological issues, where yes you can look at psychosis (via much more intensive testing than peanut allergies) and put some people in the “definitely yes” category and most in the “almost certainly no (for now)” category, but there’s a much hazier boundary, even focusing on these two groups in the distribution and not the people who (so far) fall between.
I also think even beyond the diagnosis issue the matter of self-policing on not killing yourself with an allergen is not that similar to self-policing on being especially vulnerable to having the lying flattery robot loosen your grip on reality, for reasons that I would vaguely compare to but not equivocate with self-policing on consuming addictive substances.
A lot of this depends on if we’re talking about our present society or some imagined socialist one where there are regulations in place to prevent the product from being malicious. The trendy example is gambling. Obviously I don’t think people should be forbade from playing poker with their friends or whatever, but I don’t think mere education is enough of a guard to counterbalance the intensely predatory and ever-evolving practices of the industry, so we would need better substantiation on the “guarded against” part to take it seriously.
You can surely see how contemporary AI resembles this, where theoretically there are safeguards that could be put in place to make them much less dangerous, but we can’t count on that happening and should have some idea of what our stance on how the present versions should be treated is.
I was being facetious. I apologize for the confusion. I am very familiar with lengthy discussions on here about which media is reactionary and why.
Contrary to your expectation, I at no point was going to bring up abuse materials, I understand that that’s a different subject and its reasons do not apply here.
I don’t follow the allusion here, honestly, unless it’s a different gen-AI thing.
just to clear up the last thing I was alluding to, a common argument that I find salient as to banning generative CSAM where no actual persons were involved is that it makes detecting and policing actual CSAM much more difficult.