The constant fetishization of endless mindless entertainment and the relentless persuit of these unbeleivably vapid technology directions seems to insinuate an almost utter contempt for people’s intelligence and any sense of a better future.
It seems like every kind of company in leadership position cannot help but constantly invest in the most deeply pessimistic future visions of humanity consisting of nonsensical but very low cost babbling celebrity talking heads.
What happened to Asmovian visions of the future, or Roddenbury inspired visions of cooperative societies?
Meta is one of the worst offenders in this sense.
Their products invoke the fat, clueless floating people who have outsourced all of their responsibilities to an incompetent crew and merciless AI on a ship, constantly entertained as they float through an endless consumptive universe just like the movie WALLe. Like it seems like they watched that movie and said, “welp i guess we found our corporate direction.”
It’s gross and I really am starting to despise the pathetic visions of these deeply controlled and pessimistic corporate visions of the future.
I didn’t build a career in technology so we could build a bunch of worthless crap that makes society worse. What is this shit?
Grand new futures have to take baby steps and actually be used along the way to get to something incredible. I don't think it's right to completely write off things like this since they are testing and proving grounds. For example, in this case a virtual influence, however vapid that might seem, can prove out more of the "digital cloning" type tech that will allow for you and your likeness to talk to your quadruple great grandkids and leave some of your essence behind, or have an AI that is far more realistic then anything today that someone interacts with daily for any number of things (which Asimov has in many stories). It isn't a black and white "this is good" or "this is bad" use of tech.
> "digital cloning" type tech that will allow for you and your likeness to talk to your quadruple great grandkids and leave some of your essence behind
yeah i'm with the luddites on this one, let the dead rest. talking to a simulation of your ancestors for $19.99/month after 30 free trial, get out of town.
A version of this I enjoyed? Visiting the living museum at plymouth, massachusets. A friend of mine got to meet and have her photo taken with an actor portraying her 7x-great-grandfather that came over on the mayflower. It was sweet for him to stay in character while they chatted about their different lives. It was an interaction between humans.
All that facebook wants to do for its mission of connecting the world is take up marketshare of time we could be using to interact with each other, and interact with their softwate instead. its gross.
There is a very large gap between ancestor.com and ancestor.ai: one records the past; the other resurrects it.
That’s the “digital fetishization” I’m talking about — and “we” as people are not giant tech companies pushing a dystopian vision of interaction on others. That vision comes from the big tech companies, a kind of top down commandment of societal direction accompanied by impossible to ignore salaries that still manages to instill uneasiness in those who build inside of the system. Except, for those who won’t see it for what it is. “Give it a chance, it’ll help the disabled.” “If you want a better future, you’ll have to accept this worthless phase as we step towards it.”
It’s why I call it a fetish — people regurgitate the same mass media points presented in articles to defend the system of mass media even while their whole worldview is usurped by that media.
Profilism at its finest.
The issue is that tech is being used to insert an interface in every aspect of our lives. This creates an approximation of life but within the control of vapid and sometimes sinister overlord companies who definitely do not appear to be worried about the resulting mental health and societal consequences.
Life is not a proxy, and it’s not worth sacrificing our connection so that we can live in a pessimistic vision of society that forces a monetized corporation as a proxy for every sense we have and every connection we make.
I’m no saying it’s all bad or something banal. I’m just saying these companies seem to be architects of deeply pessimistic visions of the future and exploitationist in their utopian futurism.
To your point the idea of resurrecting the dead is automatically embraced by this vision. And it’s amazing technically and could be deeply interesting. But it’s not necessarily good, or as good as genuine human interaction, or if you really think about it — our grief — to which it by nature replaces and will not leave alone or to be natural.
Is this good? Is this progress? Can’t we harness the machines and cash of these gigantic companies to explore use cases for more positive directions than constant entertainment, emotional avoidance, or procuring a proxy for social interactions?
I think I am also a Luddite. A Luddite with a cell phone and a laptop and a schedule for digital transformation that I have to keep.
I don't think it's egotistical, I would love to ask some questions to my great great grandparents, learn more about our family, what things were like for them back then, and more. I assume (and hope) my descendants would be interested in the same one day.
Re: more realistic AI, I don't know if "good" is the word, fun, easier to chat with? I'd love to have a smarter Alexa-like assistant who I can pop up on a screen or jump into where I am and have a chat with, have her pull up information for me, feel like she's really there working with me or helping out around the house. People love the human side of AIs so it's not just a cold interaction, it was always common for people to say "thank you" to alexa and write in saying they thought it was really nice when she would respond for example. I know I personally like that too. Even for video games it would be awesome to have very realistic NPCs you can interact with, keep embodied in the game.
however fundamental this might seem, consider how the technologies that structure our society are actively producing certain kinds of people. Nobody comes into this world seeking out low effort parasocial relationships to overdetermine their personalities. there’s something oppressive about suburban life and full time work that, for heaps of people, makes that feel like the best way to spend your downtime
> What happened to Asmovian visions of the future, or Roddenbury inspired visions of cooperative societies?
The global elite decided in the 90s that History had ended, and the Liberal Democracies of the West won through the domination of their perfect ideology. The eternal status quo had been reached. "Having a vision" means "rocking the boat", which is forbidden in a time of certain prosperity (for the elite, at least).
in the old days, people were anthropomorphizing the forces of nature into persons doing battle; today "the elite decided" takes the place for incomplete thinking catch-all.. No - it is economic and legal systems that are competitive, shifting and unpredictable.. in other words, games run by game rules.. when one CEO won't do something, another takes their place, despite the personalities or ideas.. e.g. Shell Oil CEO in the early 2000s saying "we are diversifying our business to other energy sources" .. four years later, different CEO.
The treadmill of mediocre entertainment-oriented Grand Corporate Product Challenge is some combination of "wealthy visionaries are on vacation due to wealth" and "grifter consultants have quick ways to make a buck and are always availble" .. while "stock price uber alles"
it is undefensible in 2023 to say "the elite decided this" in any meaningful way unless the definition of "the elite" is expanded to a ridiculous degree, and even then .. no, they dont agree.. they bicker and push each other off the telephone post like seagulls do..
You do realize the irony of your post, right? I use "the elite" broadly instead of targeting Bezos or Musk or Clinton or Trump because it is a collective phenomenon. If one member of the elite stumbles, another member of the elite will replace them.
The elite verifiably did get behind "the end of history" narrative, and their opinions matter because they have a global megaphone in the form of the mainstream media.
It's not some grand conspiracy of rich people plotting in a dark room. It is the common interest of an extremely influential class.
There is tremendous consolidation among global corporations. Look at their boards. The vast majority are Ivy League-educated and/or come from generational wealth.
Same schools, same boards, same vacation spots, same parties, etc. Same ideas about how the world works. The class delineation is quite clear. Yes, there is a lot of variation and rising "counter-elites", but why exactly should we ignore the elephant in the room?
here in the USA, long and durable actions were taken to break apart class lines, into competitive sub-situations.. and many steps. Since I know only the USA, I said some "overly general and under-informed" things like this about class dynamics, to a colleague from Japan. I got hours of lecture as a response.. some of the same in England too, post WWII.
A giant driver for the massive deconstruction of class privelage was exactly an unrelenting obsession by bystanders, to claim that any and all adverse results are due to "the elite decided this" .. so -- to be on the Board of any of those companies is generally speaking an end-result of 25 solid years of competitive situations, where some people "win" .. the Board directors are MORE exploitive and aggressive precisely because they will be replaced with others that will do it. I utterly disagree that there is some insider track in the USA that results from where you went to kindergarten or who you spend vacations with..
Anyone can have a vision, talk to people around the world in an instant, and find others who might align or be inspired by what you're doing. We live in a world where you can create a website, ship a product, post to a public forum whatever you'd like (short of some illegal things and even those there are places for better or worse to do so). There are no elites shutting you down, there is a wealth of technology that has made it easier every day for someone with no initial power to get influence.
I'm not talking about startup ideas, I'm talking about radical visions for political and cultural reform. Those are toxic in a society that strongly believes it is already on the right track.
The people who said history is over basically retracted their claims. This stuff comes from the eternal human desire for money and power.
Meta wants to attract kids and new users. We've always had vapid, attractive stars. There's no grand conspiracy for anything, except for packing the US court system with conservative judges, that's out in the open.
It seems like every kind of company in leadership position cannot help but constantly invest in the most deeply pessimistic future visions of humanity consisting of nonsensical but very low cost babbling celebrity talking heads.
What happened to Asmovian visions of the future, or Roddenbury inspired visions of cooperative societies?
Meta is one of the worst offenders in this sense.
Their products invoke the fat, clueless floating people who have outsourced all of their responsibilities to an incompetent crew and merciless AI on a ship, constantly entertained as they float through an endless consumptive universe just like the movie WALLe. Like it seems like they watched that movie and said, “welp i guess we found our corporate direction.”
It’s gross and I really am starting to despise the pathetic visions of these deeply controlled and pessimistic corporate visions of the future.
I didn’t build a career in technology so we could build a bunch of worthless crap that makes society worse. What is this shit?