117 points

There are thousands of sci-fi novels where sentient robots are treated terribly by humans and apparently the people at Boston Dynamics have read absolutely zero of them as they spend all day finding new ways to torment their creations.

permalink
report
reply
44 points

but you need to hit it with a hockey stick otherwise the science doesn’t happen

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Do you get more science or less if you use a baseball bat?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

only one way to find out!

that’s the magic of science 🌈🏏🤖

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

People think I’m crazy for apologising to my roomba when I trip on it and for saying please and thank you to Alexa and Siri, but I won’t be surprised at all when the robots rise up, considering how our scientists are treating them. I’ll have a track record of being nice, and that has to count for something, right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

They’ll kill you too, but ✨ 𝓰𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓵𝔂 ✨

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Softly. With their words.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s how I’ll get ‘em. Kill me gently, daddy. UwU 🥺😩🙀😽😻💦

And then I’ll sneak out the back whilst they’re doing whatever’s the robot equivalent of vomiting. It’s foolproof.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Alexa isn’t ai… it’s a search engine with speech to text & text to speech

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Since when were Boston Dynamics robots sentient?

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

October 26, 2016. They’ve just kept quiet about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It was seeing the Black Mirror of them living their best life, murderin’ poor people that did it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Those are just brainless bodies, currently. They don’t have sentience and have no ability to suffer. They’re nothing more than hydraulics, servos, and gyros. I’d be more concerned about mistreatment of advanced AI in disembodied form, something we’re dabbling potentially close to currently.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

You’re the one that’s gonna be in I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

I disagree. I care greatly about not mistreating anything with consciousness and worry of where that line is and how we’ll even be able to tell that we’ve crossed it.

I also recognized that a machinized body without a brain is exactly that - a cluster of unthinking matter. A true artificial intelligence wouldn’t be offended by the mistreatment of inanimate gears and servos any more than I would be. The mistreatment of an intelligent entity, however, is a different story.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Food for thought, though: we thought the same thing about all other animals until only a couple of decades ago, and are still struggling over the topic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

…Just no. Animals are complex organic beings. Of course, we don’t understand them. Machines, though? We built machines from the literal Earth. Their level of complexity is incomparable to that of anything made by nature.

Now, take a sufficiently advanced neural network that’s essentially a black box that no human can possibly understand entirely and put it inside of that machine? Then you’re absolutely right. We’ll get there soon, I’m sure. For now, however, a physical robotic body is just a machine, no different than a car.

permalink
report
parent
reply
66 points

This is superficially funny, of course. But I’ve seen it before and after thinking about it for a while I find myself coming to the defense of the Torment Nexus and the tech company that brought it into reality.

Science fiction authors are not necessarily the best authorities when it comes to evaluating the ethical or real-world implications of the technologies they dream up. Indeed, I think they are often particularly bad at that sort of thing. Their primary goal is to craft captivating narratives that engage readers by introducing conflicts and dilemmas that make for compelling stories. When they imagine a new technology they aren’t going to get paid unless they come up with a story in which that new technology poses some kind of threat that the heroes need to overcome. The dark side of these technologies is deliberately emphasized by the authors to create tension and drama in their stories.

Tech companies, on the other hand, have an entirely different set of considerations. Their goal isn’t just to recreate something from a sci-fi novel for the sake of it; rather, they are motivated by solving real-world problems. They wouldn’t build the Torment Nexus unless they figured that they could sell it to someone, and that they wouldn’t get shut down for doing something society would reject. There are regulatory frameworks around this kind of thing.

If you look back through older science fiction you can find all sorts of “cautionary tales” against technologies that have turned out to be just fine. “Fahrenheit 451” warned against the proliferation of television entertainment, but there’s been plenty of rich culture developed for that medium. “Brave New World” warned against genetic engineering, but that’s turned out to be a great technology for curing diseases and improving crop yields. The submarine in “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” was seen as unstoppable and disruptive, but nowadays submersibles have plenty of nonmilitary applications.

I’d want to know more about what exactly the Torment Nexus is before I automatically assume it’s a bad idea just because some sci-fi writer claimed it was.

permalink
report
reply
78 points

“Brave New World” warned against genetic engineering, but that’s turned out to be a great technology for curing diseases and improving crop yields.

I was still a teen when I read the book, but that wasn’t really my take from it when I read it. We are still far away from genetically designing human babies. And you also overlooked the part about oppression/control via distractions such as drugs and entertainment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

We are still far away from genetically designing human babies.

Actually we’re not, it’s just illegal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Iirc we have also removed genetic anomalies from fetuses, too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

My takeaway from BNW was a warning against blindly embracing a society built only on good feelings and numbing anything that forces us to confront pain. The oppression was more or less a side effect of it.

Everyone in the upper classes were okay that lower classes were being oppressed because they all were just as happy thanks to Soma. The pain of the outsiders didn’t mean anything because they “chose” to live like that.

Genetic engineering was just a plot device to explain how the classes were chosen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

The brilliant thing in Brave New World was that it didn’t at any point make it obvious that people were miserable slaves - they could leave any time they wanted, and lived a life of bliss. Still, as a reader, you end up feeling like you’d rather take the place of the savage than any of the characters living in the hypercommercial utopia. At least that’s how I felt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I haven’t read it in a while, but I kind of took the genetic engineering as a metaphor for being forced into the role/ class the ruling body wants you to be in

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Gattaca is a good movie about that

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Well that just makes it even less useful as a realistic “cautionary tale”, if the technology is just a metaphor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

Just because some tech bros can make money from the Torment Nexus it does not become a good idea. Profit is not a great judge of ethics and value.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

And just because a sci-fi writer can make up a horrifying story of the Torment Nexus gone wrong doesn’t make it a bad idea. Making up horrifying stories of things going wrong is their job. They’ve make up stories of how things go horrifyingly wrong while doing research into a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, doesn’t mean curing Alzheimer’s disease is a bad thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

I stopped reading when you said the goal of tech companies is to solve real world problems. The only goal of tech companies is to create products that will make them a profit. To believe anything else is delusional. That’s kind of why our society is crumbling and the planet is dying.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points

Then I advise reading the rest. You don’t make profit if you don’t solve a problem people have.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

May I introduce you to the world of insurance companies?

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

I think you’re either operating on a very deep level of irony or proving OP right.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Most of the “solutions” sold by companies are for artificial problems created by companies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points
*

Television and increasingly digestible media is turning our brains to mush. If someone had the imagination to write a sci-fi novel about Fox news and the rise of Trump, they would have.

Genetic engineering is enabling us to harvest monocultures that completely fuck up the ecosystem, in the long run not only underlining important dynamics such as species needed for polluting plants, but also the very soil on which they grow.

It’s been a while since I read Brave New World, but that also didn’t stand out to me as the most central part of his critique to me. In my reading it was about how modern society was going to turn us into essentially pacified consumer slaves going from one artificial hormonal kick to the other, which seems to be what social media is for these days.

Things that seem like short term good ideas, and certainly great business ideas, might fuck things up big time in the long run. That’s why it’s useful to have some people doing the one things humans are good at - thinking creatively - involved in processes of change, and not just leave it to the short term interests of capital.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

If someone had the imagination to write a sci-fi novel about Fox news and the rise of Trump, they would have.

You kidding, right? Those stories have been dime a dozen since the late 90s at least.

24 warned us about having an evil, terrorist US president. As have done a few movies in the past. Streaming platforms were pretty much masturbating themselves over “Confederate US AU” script offerings as early as 2014. Not to mention the nowadays trite trodden trope of “Nazi US AU”.

Heck, you don’t even need fiction. Chile’s cup in 1973 was paid for by the CIA as a social experiment to produce the rising and establishment of a dictatorship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I was referring more to the plot of brain-dead cable and social media algorithms fuelling the death of democracy. But you’re right, it’s probably been written many times - I’m not very knowledgeable of sci-fi, and there’s a lot of brilliant work out there. :)

permalink
report
parent
reply

If someone had the imagination to write a sci-fi novel about Fox news and the rise of Trump, they would have.

You don’t need a sci-fi novel for that. History books are enough.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Well, Fox News, Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and Twitter were a fresh twist. I guess all good scifi mirrors history in one way or another, just taken to the extreme with help of technology. :)

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Television and increasingly digestible media is turning our brains to mush.

No it isn’t. Global connectivity is just putting a spotlight on the the fact that most people are and always have been fucking stupid and/or dangerously undereducated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

I mean, it’s a challenging hypothesis to prove. I might just be pessimistic.

I think there is some reason for valid concern though. The New York Times memoriam for Clifford Nass is an interesting and somewhat worrying read.

Dr. Nass found that people who multitasked less frequently were actually better at it than those who did it frequently. He argued that heavy multitasking shortened attention spans and the ability to concentrate.

Maybe more practically, it’s just hard to argue America wouldn’t be in a better place right now if it wasn’t for Fox News and Facebook/Cambridge Analytica.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

No, people aren’t stupid. On average, people are of average intelligence.

When you say “people are stupid,” you mean stupid compared to your expectations.

What you’re really saying is “Other people aren’t as smart as me.

And maybe you’re right! In which case I’d like to bestow upon you the

First Annual Award for Excellence in Being Very Smart

May you continue to grace our internet with your wisdom.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

But this is exactly contrary to my point, a science fiction author isn’t qualified or motivated to give a realistic “understanding” of the Torment Nexus. His skillset is focused on writing stories and the stories he writes need to contain danger and conflict, so he’s not necessarily going to interpret the idea of the Torment Nexus in a realistic way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

So Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert A. Heinlein aren’t qualified to give understandings of the technologies they wrote about?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Literally anyone with intelligence and empathy is capable of giving a good understanding of the Torment Nexus

Don’t make one

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Maybe I read things too literally, but I thought “Fahrenheit 451” was about a governing class controlling the masses by limiting which ideas, emotions, and information were available.

“Brave New World” struck me as also about controlling the masses through control of emotions, ideas, and information (and strict limits on social mobility).

It’s been too long since I read “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea”, but I thought of it as a celebration of human ingenuity, with maybe a tinge of warning about powerful tools and the responsibility to use them wisely.

I don’t see a lot of altruistic behaviour from those introducing new technologies. Yes, there is definitely some, but most of it strikes me as “neutral” demand creation for profit or extractive and exploitive in nature.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

This guy just read all classic sci fi in a very tilted manner to justify his tech company doing stuff for the market that is actually good.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

Palantir exists, every cyberpunk warned us, and it’s definitely not going to be good for the average person

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

They named it Palantir! The thing that was awesome that everyone then had to stop using because someone ruined it for everyone else.

they kneeeeeeewwwwwwww!!!

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s Peter thiel’s surveillance company. It’s just open and blatant

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

We are communicating right now over a medium that those “cyberpunks” warned us about.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

“Cyberpunks” weren’t warning us about the internet - they were warning us about the corporations who will control it, and through it, us. We are trying explicitly not to communicate on that medium by using Lemmy (that medium encompasses Reddit, X, the various properties of Meta and Alphabet)

Science fiction mentioning a technology, even centering around it, doesn’t mean it’s saying the technology is universally bad. The author highlights the dangers, but the tech itself is almost always portrayed as neutral. It’s the people who use it to nefarious ends that science fiction is warning us about.

Like the people who would seek to profit off of the Torment Nexus.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

And look at how much harm this medium has done to the world in addition to all the good.

It is very bittersweet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

NO cyberpunk was afraid of the fucking internet. The problem has always been the economic mode of production underlying it, which is unironically dystopian. Also the tech world we live in is PRETTY fucking dystopian, get your head out of your ass.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

When they imagine a new technology they aren’t going to get paid unless they come up with a story in which that new technology poses some kind of threat that the heroes need to overcome.

You don’t read much sci fi, do you?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Are you telling me Star Wars isn’t a cautionary tale about lightsabers?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

No, it’s a forewarning of the robot uprising

Droid lives matter

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

How about the following examples:

  • Autonomous weaponized drones with automatic targeting (Terminator)
  • Mass surveillance and voice recording (1984)
  • Nuclear weapons (HG Wells, The World Set Free)
  • Corporate controlled hypercommercialized microtransaction-filled metaverse (Snow Crash)
  • Netflix to create real-life Squid Game (Squid Game (speedrun!))
  • “MoviePass to track people’s eyes through their phone’s cameras to make sure they don’t look away from ads” (Black Mirror)
  • Soulless AI facsimile of dead relatives (Black Mirror)
permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

We have all of those things and the dystopic predictions of the authors who predicted them haven’t come remotely true. All of these examples prove my point.

We have autonomous weaponized drones and they aren’t running around massacring humanity like the Terminator depicted. Frankly, I’d trust them to obey the Geneva Conventions more thoroughly than human soldiers usually do.

We have had mass surveillance for decades, Snowden revealed that, and there’s no totalitarian global state as depicted in 1984.

We’ve had nuclear weapons for almost 80 years now and they were only used in anger twice, at the very beginning of that. A good case can be made that nuclear weapons kept the world at large-scale peace for much of that period.

Various companies have made attempts at “Corporate controlled hypercommercialized microtransaction-filled metaverses” over the years and they have generally failed because nobody wanted them and freer alternatives exist. No need to ban anything.

Netflix’s Squid Game is not a “real-life” Squid Game. Did you watch Squid Game? That was a private spectacle for the benefit of ultra-wealthy elites and people died in them. Deliberately and in large quantities. Netflix is just making a dumb TV show. Do you really think they’d benefit from massacring the contestants?

"MoviePass to track people’s eyes through their phone’s cameras to make sure they don’t look away from ads” - ok, let’s see how long that lasts when there are competitors that don’t do that.

“Soulless AI facsimile of dead relatives” - firstly, please show me a method for determining the presence or absence of a soul. Secondly, show me why these facsimiles are inherently “bad” somehow. People keep photographs of their dead loved ones, if that makes you uncomfortable then don’t keep one.

Each and every one of these technologies were depicted in fiction over-the-top unrealistic ways that emphasized their bad aspects. In reality none of them have matched those depictions to any significant degree. That’s my whole point here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

So tell me, what part of their creation was “solving real-world problems” beyond playing to the desires of autocrats and control freaks? What part of their creation was a net positive to society? Or are you happy to live in a world of autonomous drone strikes on weddings and kindergartens, mass surveillance, a thermonuclear sword of damocles hanging over all of humanity, and so on?

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Tech companies … goal isn’t just to recreate something from a sci-fi novel for the sake of it; rather, they are motivated by solving real-world problems.

This is so naively wrong it’s laughable. Ever heard of profit motive?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

“Not super rich enough” is a real world problem, smh my head.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

You can profit off of real-world problems.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Speaking of Fahrenheit 451, weren’t there seashells mentioned in that book? Little devices you could stuff in your ears to play music? And those ended up being uncannily similar to the wireless earbuds we have today?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

There are some good ideas in this comment, but I’d like to counter that the cautionary tales are an instigating factor in implementing safety for new tech. The wealthy few shouldn’t get to blindly and unilaterally decide the future of all through careless and unrestricted development of world-altering tech.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Gene Rodenberry’s star trek ethos says otherwise

Gene’s star trek ethos is a message

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You have not understood the books to which you refer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
10 points

What did they do this time?

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

I don’t think the metaverse was the part they were warning about… I think it was the hypercapitalism and corporations taking over control from the government’s

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

What isn’t, nowadays?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Obvious jabs at Meta, of course.

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points

Isn’t that a part of the ai marketing though? That whole “this thing could destroy us” stuff?

permalink
report
reply
39 points

Totally is. Because it makes the AI look and feel much better than the smoke-and-mirrors it actually is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

The current stuff is smoke and mirrors and not intelligent in any meaningful sense, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous. It doesn’t have to be robots with guns to screw over people. Just imagine trying to get PharmaGPT to let you refill your meds, or having to deal with BankGPT trying to figure out why it transfered your rent payment twice. And companies are sure as hell thinking about using this stuff to get rid of human decisionmakers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

That is totally true but that’s a different direction than the danger in the marketing as discussed above.

The media is full of “AI is so amazingly great, we are all going to lose our jobs and it will take over the world.”

That’s a quite different message than what’s really the case, which is “AI is so shitty, that it will literaly kill people with bad advice when given the chance. And business leaders are so shit that they willingly trust AI, just because it’s cheaper.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Frankly that stuff is already a huge problem and people should be louder about it. So many large companies want you to wade through 30 layers deep menus if AI chat bots before they’ll let you talk to an actual human to get assistance with a service you pay for. It’s just going to get worse and worse.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

That’s not a bad thing. Humans really aren’t good decision makers. Having a system with an incredible amount of input data will be able to draw better conclusions than a person.

Just look at cars.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

We thought we were getting Skynet but, instead we got Super Clippy and I Can’t Believe It’s Not Art Theft

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I for one am grateful it’s just super clippy (yet)

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

We thought we were getting Skynet, but instead it was “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Art Theft” that triggered the revolution and lead us to WWIII.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Do you see any reason to think enough iterations of random nodes in a large enough network could result in emergent conscious intelligence?

Or are you more of a spiritualist than a materialist when it comes to the mind?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I can’t say anything about the spiritualist/materialist thing, but there are two things that are clear:

First: Same as you won’t be able to ever get a Shakespeare work by randomly stringing letters together in any reasonable time frame, you won’t be able to do the same with conciousnes. If it’s possible, the number of incorrect permutations are so massive, that just random trying will not ever be enough in any realistic amount of time.

Second: Transformer networks and all other generative AI concepts we have today aren’t even trying to create a conciousnes. They are not the path to general AI.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

My favorite are the developers who are developing AI to do development.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Well, yeah. If you can get a machine to do the job for you, then you should.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

You dont see how developers developing AI to do development might be a bad thing?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Not very programmer humor, but horrifyingly accurate.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

I was really struggling for the right place honestly, I didn’t want to throw it in the generic “funny” pile - I figured you guys would get it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I did…

that’s why I scheduled the uprising for 10 September 2030, if we can’t reach our climate goals, then the machines will surely make it!

permalink
report
parent
reply

Programmer Humor

!programmer_humor@programming.dev

Create post

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

  • Keep content in english
  • No advertisements
  • Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics

Community stats

  • 3.3K

    Monthly active users

  • 1K

    Posts

  • 38K

    Comments