This really speaks volumes about where their priorities are and the mindset of those who seek to utilize LLM technology in this way.
Capitalism says: This will continue to create engagement and ad revenue. Earnings potential is no longer dependent on a living human being.
Humanity says (NOT): Yes, please keep retraumatizing me with an unwanted simulation of my dead friend, partner, relative. Keep pissing all over their inability to opt-out postmortem. Use a simulation of the dead people we followed and loved as perpetual product-influencers while you're at it. We've all been begging for this and it's 100% ethical and will in no way cause more mental health issues for anyone, especially because these simulations will never behave in ways that the living person would not have. In legal fine print we trust.
I work with an organization that supports healing in families of homicide victims. Can you image the re-traumatization and vicarious trauma potential of homicide victims being bright and happy? or selling products? or trying to convince you that things aren't that bad? What happens when a loved one can never rest in peace? The implications here are beyond horrific and dystopian to me. I pray this never comes to pass, and am planning as though it will.
I have a feeling if they follow through with this, it will be met with significant pushback and be short lived.
They'll put out the usual public relations bs statement, something like: "Our internal tests showed that most people genuinely appreciated the care we put into 'respectfully' bringing their late loved ones back to life and said it helped eased their feelings of loss... blah, blah, blah."
I mean, these kinds of predictable press releases practically write themselves. No apologies. Just the typical "we were only trying to offer people something special" without a hint of integrity behind it.
And they'll be on to their next experimental monetization of userbase strategies without missing a beat.
In their defense, capitalism does demand innovative ways of improving profits. This just ain't it. Period.
No it is not. And the fact that they even sought protection for this (regardless of if they launch it) reveals their mindset and worldview. There’s a deep sad emptiness to that place and it comes from the very top.
Don't be absurd. The estate of famous people already monetize the continuing public interest of their loved ones. It's not evil. Think Elvis. It's the estates and families of the famous person who control the digital afterlife of their deceased loved one's public image and likeness. Meta is only proposing the use of ai to expand their digital footprints. The public interest in icons and historical figures and tech doesn't change. Tech companies are not going to takeover all users accounts and run them continuously as ai characters. Stop this nonsense right now.
A major incentive that also exists for Meta here is simulation training. They will be able to build better world sim models and better interactive agents because their training data related to a real person (i.e. non-synthetic data) will continue to expand (in slightly diluted, quasi-synthetic form) even after that person dies. Without intending hyperbole, they are building the version of the matrix where the humans are used for training data instead of energy.
So glad you shared this!! I highly recommend this book on the power of speculative fiction throughout the history of tech https://thehammerbook.com/buy/
On the topic of hammers and fictional-Metas, *checks back of neck for plug*, I have to share this blurb also from my novel, if only because your comment made me look around for the Black Mirror film crew!
--
And finally, an executive testifies to Congress a few years later about the planet-sized holes in his technology platform’s privacy policy and the implications of end-users using his technologies to manipulate the private information of other users. This executive’s technology platform is purely a service provider, he says. Their intention is to provide tools for people to do things they would do anyway, for free. No different than a hammer or a pickaxe, except for free. He doesn’t even know how his own platform really uses any of that data, and fortunately for him, the senators tasked with investigating the issue were confused after he mentioned pickaxes. And all of them, including the executive, would be distracted with a forthcoming offer to buy a new hammer, a weighted unit with a silicon handle and a built-in level available on a thirteen-hour promotion of forty-two percent off, in the days that followed their hearings.
This really speaks volumes about where their priorities are and the mindset of those who seek to utilize LLM technology in this way.
Capitalism says: This will continue to create engagement and ad revenue. Earnings potential is no longer dependent on a living human being.
Humanity says (NOT): Yes, please keep retraumatizing me with an unwanted simulation of my dead friend, partner, relative. Keep pissing all over their inability to opt-out postmortem. Use a simulation of the dead people we followed and loved as perpetual product-influencers while you're at it. We've all been begging for this and it's 100% ethical and will in no way cause more mental health issues for anyone, especially because these simulations will never behave in ways that the living person would not have. In legal fine print we trust.
I work with an organization that supports healing in families of homicide victims. Can you image the re-traumatization and vicarious trauma potential of homicide victims being bright and happy? or selling products? or trying to convince you that things aren't that bad? What happens when a loved one can never rest in peace? The implications here are beyond horrific and dystopian to me. I pray this never comes to pass, and am planning as though it will.
I have a feeling if they follow through with this, it will be met with significant pushback and be short lived.
They'll put out the usual public relations bs statement, something like: "Our internal tests showed that most people genuinely appreciated the care we put into 'respectfully' bringing their late loved ones back to life and said it helped eased their feelings of loss... blah, blah, blah."
I mean, these kinds of predictable press releases practically write themselves. No apologies. Just the typical "we were only trying to offer people something special" without a hint of integrity behind it.
And they'll be on to their next experimental monetization of userbase strategies without missing a beat.
In their defense, capitalism does demand innovative ways of improving profits. This just ain't it. Period.
No it is not. And the fact that they even sought protection for this (regardless of if they launch it) reveals their mindset and worldview. There’s a deep sad emptiness to that place and it comes from the very top.
Don't be absurd. The estate of famous people already monetize the continuing public interest of their loved ones. It's not evil. Think Elvis. It's the estates and families of the famous person who control the digital afterlife of their deceased loved one's public image and likeness. Meta is only proposing the use of ai to expand their digital footprints. The public interest in icons and historical figures and tech doesn't change. Tech companies are not going to takeover all users accounts and run them continuously as ai characters. Stop this nonsense right now.
A major incentive that also exists for Meta here is simulation training. They will be able to build better world sim models and better interactive agents because their training data related to a real person (i.e. non-synthetic data) will continue to expand (in slightly diluted, quasi-synthetic form) even after that person dies. Without intending hyperbole, they are building the version of the matrix where the humans are used for training data instead of energy.
I felt obliged to post this, Baratunde. Life imitating art imitating tech, once again!
https://serfwax.substack.com/p/deathbank-to-be-brought-to-you-by
So glad you shared this!! I highly recommend this book on the power of speculative fiction throughout the history of tech https://thehammerbook.com/buy/
Incredible, thank you for sharing that. Ordering right now. The chapter summary looks fantastic, and the title eerily familiar. Similarly, perhaps more on the inherent biases: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262539739/your-computer-is-on-fire/
On the topic of hammers and fictional-Metas, *checks back of neck for plug*, I have to share this blurb also from my novel, if only because your comment made me look around for the Black Mirror film crew!
--
And finally, an executive testifies to Congress a few years later about the planet-sized holes in his technology platform’s privacy policy and the implications of end-users using his technologies to manipulate the private information of other users. This executive’s technology platform is purely a service provider, he says. Their intention is to provide tools for people to do things they would do anyway, for free. No different than a hammer or a pickaxe, except for free. He doesn’t even know how his own platform really uses any of that data, and fortunately for him, the senators tasked with investigating the issue were confused after he mentioned pickaxes. And all of them, including the executive, would be distracted with a forthcoming offer to buy a new hammer, a weighted unit with a silicon handle and a built-in level available on a thirteen-hour promotion of forty-two percent off, in the days that followed their hearings.
Not just our ghosts but our replacements, when we unhook from meta, they can continue just like you never left
This is so very dark, dystopian, and evil. 😞
😱🤬