Agreed on this point: Instead of fighting it, we should educate kids, and anybody else really, about what it means to interact with this new generation of technology. I’d like to know more about what you see as “fighting it” and “what it means to interact with this new generation…”
As near as I can tell, you mean we shouldn’t fight our tendency to react to an implied persona anytime we use language. I’m not sure I grasp your phrase “implied persona.” I can think of multiple uses of language which do not imply that the speaker is conjuring up an implied persona—if that means another human. Perhaps in a fairy tale? I need your help to grasp your thoughts. And I would love to agree with you. I’m not sure why you use the word “interface.” I’m a bit uncomfortable with the notion that language is a sort of technical juncture device. I sense a floating between romanticism and imaginative inner experience and an objective, scientific attitude.
I encourage you to respond to the dangers I’ve posed in this post. They are speculative at best. I have to say I’ve seen evidence of negative consequences from anthropomorphic interfaces between AI and humans among several adults whom I know closely. They are convinced this thing is human. It affects everything and reduces their capacity to command the tool.
I believe it doesn’t need to be either/or. We can antropomorphize and at the same time teach kids these tools are just tools. Machines, with no will or thoughts or feelings of their own.
What most people don’t realize is that we cannot not humanize AI. We have no choice but to do so, because when language is the interface, persona is implied. It turns from something into someone, because that’s how our brains work, if it acts and talks like us, we perceive it as such.
Instead of fighting it, we should educate kids, and anybody else really, about what it means to interact with this new generation of technology.
Agreed on this point: Instead of fighting it, we should educate kids, and anybody else really, about what it means to interact with this new generation of technology. I’d like to know more about what you see as “fighting it” and “what it means to interact with this new generation…”
As near as I can tell, you mean we shouldn’t fight our tendency to react to an implied persona anytime we use language. I’m not sure I grasp your phrase “implied persona.” I can think of multiple uses of language which do not imply that the speaker is conjuring up an implied persona—if that means another human. Perhaps in a fairy tale? I need your help to grasp your thoughts. And I would love to agree with you. I’m not sure why you use the word “interface.” I’m a bit uncomfortable with the notion that language is a sort of technical juncture device. I sense a floating between romanticism and imaginative inner experience and an objective, scientific attitude.
I encourage you to respond to the dangers I’ve posed in this post. They are speculative at best. I have to say I’ve seen evidence of negative consequences from anthropomorphic interfaces between AI and humans among several adults whom I know closely. They are convinced this thing is human. It affects everything and reduces their capacity to command the tool.
I believe it doesn’t need to be either/or. We can antropomorphize and at the same time teach kids these tools are just tools. Machines, with no will or thoughts or feelings of their own.
What most people don’t realize is that we cannot not humanize AI. We have no choice but to do so, because when language is the interface, persona is implied. It turns from something into someone, because that’s how our brains work, if it acts and talks like us, we perceive it as such.
Instead of fighting it, we should educate kids, and anybody else really, about what it means to interact with this new generation of technology.