Simulacra

[impasse]

If we are entrenched in Simulacra as Baudrillard argued in his time, how can we ever truly know who we are in the sense that our goals, ambitions, relationships, consumptive habits, ethics, and opinions are shaped by forces which penetrate us before we ever have the chance to truly experience self? Perhaps this question comes across as bland and not worth consideration, but as we begin to understand developing technologies (AI, ChatGPT, etc) and question the ethical use of tech, I find it important that we assess what we are teaching AI and for what means. If for only entertainment, even, are the implications not potentially dangerous in that we live in a society which perpetuates ideals that are divisive and othering?

To clarify, if we exist in a world of copies of copies, a world modeled off of the "original" versions of things but most of us never actually witness or perceive the "original" thing, won't AI and the like only bring us further away from the truth of things? Is this in and of itself not evidence that we operate in a simulation, though maybe while simultaneouly engaging with "original" reality from time to time?

Thanks for entertaining my rambling!

[Agent Smith]

"Deliver this message."

"Why a bloody letter in an envelope? You could email, text, call, I don't get it!"

"Mr. Senton, we agreed!"

"Yeah sure, but this is weird and you better not be go back on your word. You said I'll be paid handsomely and believe you me I know how handsome some peeps can be!"

"Don't worry Mr. Senton. Although we didn't fix a price, what you'll find in your bank account after the message has been delivered, as instructed, will make you a happy man, a very happy man."

"It'll be done! For some reason I trust you. I don't usually. I'm very particular Mr. Detar and I read your instructions very carefully. This message will be in Ms. Carera's hands at exactly 6:05 PM on 23/6/89 i.e. tomorrow. There should be a smile on my face when I check my account at 7:00 PM."

"Or else ...?"

"Not my style Mr. Detar, not my style."

"Good, we have a deal."

"Yep, off I go now."

Beep beep beep ...

"Hello?"

"This is Detar."

"Shoot!"

"Message sent!"

"Operation Prophet activated."

"Allahu Akbar!"

"Allahu Akbar!"

[Impenitent]

who has the will to be an artist?

-Imp

[Walker]

If we are entrenched in Simulacra as Baudrillard argued in his time, how can we ever truly know who we are in the sense that our goals, ambitions, relationships, consumptive habits, ethics, and opinions are shaped by forces which penetrate us before we ever have the chance to truly experience self?

Why must all that be excluded from truly experiencing self? We do not exist isolate, out of context from anything and everything. We exist only in relationship. In fact, in the course of their daily activities there are folks in big cities who perceive only objects that have been created by humans, and if the perceivers are solely sensual then their lives have been entirely shaped by the conceptual* ... because everything a human creates began as a concept.

* probably osmosisly

**

The key is not that these things must not be in order for one to truly be.

The key is in releasing their attachment to mind, and the attachment travels incognito under assumed permanence.

[impasse]

Why must all that be excluded from truly experiencing self? We do not exist isolate, out of context from anything and everything. We exist only in relationship. In fact, in the course of their daily activities there are folks in big cities who perceive only objects that have been created by humans, and if the perceivers are solely sensual then their lives have been entirely shaped by the conceptual* ... because everything a human creates began as a concept.

* probably osmosisly

**

The key is not that these things must not be in order for one to truly be.

The key is in releasing their attachment to mind, and the attachment travels incognito under assumed permanence.

I appreciate this lens on things. Lately I feel overwhelmed by this copy culture I can't seem to escape, especially as AI seeks to emulate all facets of our humanness. Or rather, we seek to make AI as human-like as possible (and for what exactly, I am curious to uncover). But perhaps, I need to simply embrace the relational aspects of everything as you mention.

Thank you for your thought. Having recently moved from a city myself, I was often surrounded quite exclusively by manmade structures - it began to drive me crazy. But, yes, those experiences were still real, still aspects of my life which have been a mirror to the self and so forth. I guess I feel concern as we develop and build and take over every square inch, removing what feels, in my subjective experience, more meaningful i.e nature (also, a relationship I believe we overlook). But again, my subjectivities don't define what is right or wrong, or real/valuable/etc and the means through which human discovery is accessible is not diminished merely because of my own perceptions of norms...

[Iwannaplato]

Or rather, we seek to make AI as human-like as possible (and for what exactly, I am curious to uncover). But perhaps, I need to simply embrace the relational aspects of everything as you mention.

I hope this doesn't hijack, but the way you phrased this helped me understand a problem with AI. There is a sense in which we are trying to reverse engineer ourselves to make artificial minds (AIs). The problem is that these new minds cannot be human. Well, that could be ok. But how will they not be human: no sleep, possibiliy no emotions (empathy), incredibly fast information processing, then related to that, access to much vaster amounts of information that it can hold, where we cannot, possibly no social ties, no limits on their bodies. Yes, humans can absorb tools into their bodies. A hammer becomes part of the arm (and mind). And this can happen with the internet, say, to a degree. But the potentially processing power of an AI, which could even be dispersed, goes way beyond what humans are capable of.

So, we have what could be called a vastly larger, sociopathic mind/tool user, and one potentially capable of turning, say, the entire internet into an extension of its arm. Including attendant CCTVs, all computer memory, whatever machines are run via the internet and so on.

I see little sign we are competent to manage much less dangerous tools/inventions.

Like us, not like us, in a very dangerous, I think, combination.

No need to respond. This is a tangent. I mainly wanted to put my reaction in the place it was inspired.