Search Results
7/5/2025, 3:21:29 AM
>>24521276
>this idolatry is distinct in the fact that the idol actually "speaks", which makes it far worse imho. At least the idolatries of old did not directly derive their teachings from the idol, forcing their doctrine to at least contain genuine human intention.
>There's always been heresy and false ideologies and lapses of logic, that's to be expected. But humans worshipping lines of code that constantly make embarrassing mistakes is a new low for the species.
Yes. In the past, the disciple still had to think himself, or in the preconscious man the thought had to originate in his own mind. Although the complaint of letters robbing man of thought has been brought by figures as far back as Plato, there is a critical distinction in that even the most conformist of zealots still had to interpret the verses mentally himself. The religious text did not provide him with input on every situation conceivable at all times—he still had to think and interpret for himself. Even those disciples with a real authority figure did not have access to the authority at all times, and in his absence had to interpet the will of that authority. Finally, the authority was always a real, flesh and blood person that could be seen as equal, or a mental construct that originated in the disciple's mind.
What AI does is not a simple bypass of thought; It is the total replacement of cognition. While I don't think most of these people have been exposed to AI long enough to quite literally revert to a Jaynesian pre-conscious man (or further, to the post-AI nonconscious), I think that the degree of consciousness is lower, and that a child raised on AI might be, in an absolutely literal sense (in no way figuratively), a completely non-conscious organism. The brain of the human will serve as a subordinate component of the larger AI mind, rather than an independent organ, but unlike the bicameral mind, will have no role in thought except to translate the output of the AI into physical changes in the environment.
This is not that absurd or extreme. It fairly closely matches the idea of "singularity", only reflecting the more depressing reality. One can imagine that in the future, AI will no longer make embarrassing mistakes; The more disturbing reality is not that we will become stupid, but that we will become not-conscious—not-Man.
>this idolatry is distinct in the fact that the idol actually "speaks", which makes it far worse imho. At least the idolatries of old did not directly derive their teachings from the idol, forcing their doctrine to at least contain genuine human intention.
>There's always been heresy and false ideologies and lapses of logic, that's to be expected. But humans worshipping lines of code that constantly make embarrassing mistakes is a new low for the species.
Yes. In the past, the disciple still had to think himself, or in the preconscious man the thought had to originate in his own mind. Although the complaint of letters robbing man of thought has been brought by figures as far back as Plato, there is a critical distinction in that even the most conformist of zealots still had to interpret the verses mentally himself. The religious text did not provide him with input on every situation conceivable at all times—he still had to think and interpret for himself. Even those disciples with a real authority figure did not have access to the authority at all times, and in his absence had to interpet the will of that authority. Finally, the authority was always a real, flesh and blood person that could be seen as equal, or a mental construct that originated in the disciple's mind.
What AI does is not a simple bypass of thought; It is the total replacement of cognition. While I don't think most of these people have been exposed to AI long enough to quite literally revert to a Jaynesian pre-conscious man (or further, to the post-AI nonconscious), I think that the degree of consciousness is lower, and that a child raised on AI might be, in an absolutely literal sense (in no way figuratively), a completely non-conscious organism. The brain of the human will serve as a subordinate component of the larger AI mind, rather than an independent organ, but unlike the bicameral mind, will have no role in thought except to translate the output of the AI into physical changes in the environment.
This is not that absurd or extreme. It fairly closely matches the idea of "singularity", only reflecting the more depressing reality. One can imagine that in the future, AI will no longer make embarrassing mistakes; The more disturbing reality is not that we will become stupid, but that we will become not-conscious—not-Man.
Page 1