Not all AI is inevitable.

Technological optimisation, automating tasks, reducing friction - sure, but companion AI? We simply don’t have to do it.

We have a choice. Murphy’s law is a way to excuse and invisibilise the makers of technology. Technology doesn’t just appear, it doesn’t spawn from a tree (that’s fruit). It is made. By a human. Or put it in active form: people make technologies. So they can choose not to make them. Or to make different ones.

(unfinished) thought generated by reading this great article

It will be called “Atlernative fictions for science”, and it will be about - you guessed it - science fiction. More specifically about who writes SF and who consumes it; but also how it has directly influenced the technologies we’ve built and the reality we live in today. So that’s part one: making the claim that the future we imagine and write becomes the future we live in. Part two will introduce other forms of science fiction from other cultures. SF that is written from another perspective, maybe by a different type of author, with a different background and alternative views on how the future could unfold. Part two will ask: what if those became our future? Finally part three will sum these up in a central claim: what ethical responsibilities do works of science fiction hold? What if we wrote more credible utopias? Would we be creating a better future? Would we inspire different people to become leaders?

What do you think?

Definition: play happens through a process of subversion and experimentation.

Eg: a glass is designed for me to drink out of; if I fill it up and drink I am not playing; but if I pretend it is filled or if I put it on my head as a hat, I am playing, because I am subverting its primary function

Claim: to play with an object, humans need to see the whole of it 

[least play] GenAI > Story (video) games > Sandbox games (Minecraft) > Cards > Tree branch [most play]

Argument:

The branch is not entertaining in itself, and it isn’t man made. But we can pick it up, smell it, lick it, break it, throw it, go around it, in short, we can analyse how it works because we see the object in full. We can therefore experiment with, that is  “play” with the branch.

Cards are made by man with a primary function in mind, which is relatively entertaining. But our ability to see them whole means we can subvert their initial function and “play” with them differently: stack them as a castle, throw the, rip them, fold them, ....

With Minecraft, we enter the realm of the digital game. Minecraft has simple, clear, accessible and stable instructions. There is a limited number of things one can do, but infinite combinations. Because the parameters are accessible, the game can be seen “as a whole”, and therefore “played with” or in other words “subverted by” people. The storyline of the game itself is not as interesting.

With recently more complex video games, entertainment and “play” come from following a story line, or performing satisfying mechanics (eg. shooting people). Those games however, cannot really be played differently. A small number of keen people can create code to “mod” the game, allowing them to “play” or “experiment” with the object differently, but that’s about it. 

GenAI on the surface looks like it would lead to high levels of playfulness, since it can do “anything”. The reality is that the workings of GenAI are obscure. They are hidden from users. The main issues with lack of GenAI use is that people don’t know what to prompt it. I believe people don’t know how to “play” with GenAI, because they can’t see it whole. They can’t hold it, turn it, pull it, lick it, throw it, they don’t see the ropes, they can’t walk around it. So they can’t subvert it, they are limited to using it for what it is made for. And when that isn’t super clear, they don’t use it at all.

Framework:

GenAI: made-made digital object (no clear function, characteristics are completely inaccesible)

Story game: man-made digital object (specifc function, characteristics are difficult to access)

Sandbox game: man-made digital object (intended function, characteristics are accessible and subvertible)

Cards: man-made analog object (intended function, characteristics are accessible and subvertible)

Tree branch: natural analog object (no intended function, characteristics are accessible and subvertible)

Conclusion: because humans cannot see “the whole” of GenAI, they cannot play with it. They are limited to following the rules of interaction. In other words, building opaque GenAI dooms it to the realm of tool and prevents it for entering the realm of toy. Being able to prompt GenAI is very different from being able to control and manipulate it. To give GenAI the wonderful properties of a tree branch is to make it accessible fully, to give people the ropes of the game, to let them play with the parameters. Giving people a back-end access to GenAI would enable them to subvert the object and therefore play with it.

Example: Meta Studio

When building a new character, the user gets a 500-word prompt to describe what its personality should be like. Once the conversation starts, there is no way to “pause” the conversation or reach a “back end” to modify or adjust the personality of the character. Giving users backroom access to GenAI will make it more manipulable, enabling people to experiment and subvert it, in other words, play with it.

Academic theory: scholars of play Corinne Hutt argues that play is serious and experimental. The first phase of play is “epistemic” where children try to understand “what does this do”. Once they figured it out, the “ludic” phase can begin where they ask instead “what can I do with this?”. The third category in her taxonomy is “games with rules” which represents structured activities with negotiated rules (in my model, akin to the entertaining story line or mechanics of video games). Source

because you get to see the sunrise everyday.

Hear me out, your hobbies are either one or the other:

• (1) a direct experience of the world: painting, dancing, singing, running, playing football

• (2) a machine: photography, gaming, sewing, woodworking

If you are a type 1 person, you feel limited by the machine. It’s an extra step, you’ve got to figure out the settings, it breaks, it’s expensive.

If you are a type 2 person, you feel empowered by the machine, it augments your capacities. By mastering this one machine - which is a finite task - you now have access to greatness, small price to pay!

I would argue that you are either one or the other.

and god is dead.

Well, they can make babies but their involvement is short-lived. Whereas with robots (understand by this term I also mean AI), they can spend time and struggle and cooperate and see the final result that resembles them. An intelligent agent that they have produced.

This fascination for reproduction probably stems from a desire to have control over one’s self. And also because god is dead. And we live longer. And we need meaning.

Rule 1: unless you are reading this on December 21st, it is not winter yet. Stop saying it is. That’s right, winter starts only 3 days before Christmas. Enjoy autumn.

Rule 2: do not get your winter coat out before it is actually winter. Enjoy autumn

Rule 3: lighting is crucial here. Have 3 modes: a “daylight” mode for when its dark but it should be light (3:30-6pm), an “evening” mode for when its dark but it should be getting dark (6-8pm), a “night” mode for when its dark and it should be dark (>8pm).

Rule 4: go outside before 3pm. Just do it.

It just does. And you know it.

The brain has this really annoying power to abstract things.

So much so that it can imagine a whole world that doesn’t exist.

Which is useful when you need to invent something new or escape reality, but not so much on a day to day, when you have to keep yourself alive. No, for that you need to be plugged in. Plugged in to how you feel, what’s going around you.

You need the body. You need to feel for signals of hunger, thirst, tiredness. You need to move around in the world, the real one not the abstraction of it you have.

When the brain spirals out of control (think anxiety, depression), the body is the only thing that can save it.

Because the body submits to the rules of time, but the brain does not. Time does not exist in the abstracted world of the brain. I can think about tomorrow then yesterday then dinosaurs then back to my future children that I don’t yet have. In the world of the body, things must happen in a timely manner: you must feed yourself to have energy, you must put one foot in front of the other to walk, you must feel the cold air on your face to be outside. You have less choice. You are less free, but you are saved. Saved from the abstract and infinite. Back into the real, the finite, the constraints of a demanding body that must be fed and watered and rested and loved and cared for.