a bot can't be sincere. the sincerity stuff goes in the disinformation chapter, is also about meaning it and nonhuman agents (who can't). This is also interface stuff Legacy Russell in with other theorists of the human. Also, think about how the cybernetic stuff of the late 20th century--how we were all going to jack in to the whatever and leave our bodies behind--is actually part of how we're understanding now? I don't know how yet, but this seems like it has to be part of the constellation. There was something about: virtuosity, about how AI tools turn anyone into "an artist" or allow them to make things. Might be tempting to say this about GW, esp the difference between the painstaking mask making and the deepfake thing, but: think of Henry Jenkins and the derogation of remix culture, gatekeeping in general, and how decisions about what constitutes virtuosity are never neutral (and their politics often aren't great)...
Posts
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Fake people 2025 GANs--theatrical power Mis/Disinformation--real power of fake entities How do we distinguish who is human? The theatre has been preoccupied with this since (let's say) RUR -Wynter, Hayles, Jackson, Spivak?-->Star Trek/BSG/Westworld Actors, faking it. The structure isn't any clearer, but maybe what belongs is. ______________________________revised below_________ Theatrical histories of pretense -MLC, Roach (also actresses), Barish, [something about technical theatre? Tarryn?]: actors and theatre, faking it. Fakeness as epistemology GANs--theatrical power of the fake and synthetic Mis/Disinformation--real power of fake entities Unembodied: Intelligence and personage without corporeality -(note that "without body" is not meant to be an attempt at definition but a description of now, since it seems probable that something like a body, or som...
conversation with elsie
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
yielded: chinese room, like turing test but also, something to say about embodiment: artificial intelligence isn't (yet) embodied, and so misses affect as a constitutive embodied experience. You can't "think" affect. And an unembodied (distributed? but that seems to imply across many bodies; nodal?) entity has no body to keep trauma's score. I thought something that went like this: Chinese room--> Difference/distinctions between artificial and human intelligences (problematize)--> -important for human supremacy/anthrocentrism -like Gopnik pointed out, changes as what artificial forms can do change; moving goal posts One difference is feeling, affect, phenomenology -this is slightly better than the magic spark -although already seems like it might be too much to claim -note the harm done in this vein: crea...
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
robots dementia surveillance https://getpocket.com/explore/item/my-parents-dementia-felt-like-the-end-of-joy-then-came-the-robots?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us My Parents’ Dementia Felt Like the End of Joy. Then Came the Robots. When my parents got sick, I turned to a new generation of roboticists—and their glowing, talking, blobby creations. WIRED Kat McGowan
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
robots that are stupid on purpose, not built to pass “We can play off the fact that it will be, inevitably, to some degree, stupid,” she suggests. What the researchers need to figure out is “where stupidity is harmful.” Unlike most other gadgets, robots get our social instincts tingling. Of course, explains Šabanović, “what distinguishes robots is that they have a body.” She adds, “They can move, show they’re paying attention, trigger us.” Children learn more from a robot than a screen. Adults trust robots more readily than computers. Dogs obey their commands. The roboticists I talk to all point to an influential paper by Amanda Lazar, a professor of human-computer interaction at the University of Maryland. Lazar described in 2017 how the field of human-computer interaction might learn from new thinking about dementia and the mind. Going way back to René Descartes, human cognition has conventionally been defined around...