About 80% of this could (and was) said about the development of the printing press. Smart people trying to ban new technology because it might be bad for the proles is a deeply held tradition.
Sorry, but this is empty rhetoric and a failure to engage with the post on the object level. How did the printing press jeopardise the reproduction of people in society? And not indirectly, through a long causal chain (such as, without the printing press, we wouldn’t have the computer, without the computer we wouldn’t have the internet, without the internet we wouldn’t have online dating and porn and AI partners, etc.), but directly? Whereas AI partners will reduce the total fertility rate directly.
The implication of your comment is that technology couldn’t be “bad” (for people, society, or any other subject), which is absurd. Technology is not ethics-neutral and could be “bad”.
Gessner’s argument against the printing press was that ordinary people could not handle so much knowledge. Gessner demanded those in power in European countries should enforce a law that regulated sales and distribution of books.
If so, I don’t understand the parallel you are trying to draw. Prior to the printing press, elites had access to 100s of books, and the average person had access to none. Whereas prior to AI romantic partners, elites and “proles” both have access to human romantic partners at similar levels. Also, I don’t think Gessner was arguing that the book surplus would reduce the human relationship participation rate and thus the fertility rate. If you’re referring to other “smart people” of the time, who are they?
Perhaps a better analogy would be with romance novels? I understand that concerns about romance novels impacting romantic relationships arose during the 18th and 19th centuries, much later.
Aside: I was unable to find a readable copy of Conrad Gessner’s argument—apparently from the preface of the Bibliotheca Universalis—so I am basing my understanding of his argument on various other sources.
About 80% of this could (and was) said about the development of the printing press. Smart people trying to ban new technology because it might be bad for the proles is a deeply held tradition.
Sorry, but this is empty rhetoric and a failure to engage with the post on the object level. How did the printing press jeopardise the reproduction of people in society? And not indirectly, through a long causal chain (such as, without the printing press, we wouldn’t have the computer, without the computer we wouldn’t have the internet, without the internet we wouldn’t have online dating and porn and AI partners, etc.), but directly? Whereas AI partners will reduce the total fertility rate directly.
The implication of your comment is that technology couldn’t be “bad” (for people, society, or any other subject), which is absurd. Technology is not ethics-neutral and could be “bad”.
Are you referring to the concerns of Conrad Gessner? From Why Did First Printed Books Scare Ancient Scholars In Europe?:
If so, I don’t understand the parallel you are trying to draw. Prior to the printing press, elites had access to 100s of books, and the average person had access to none. Whereas prior to AI romantic partners, elites and “proles” both have access to human romantic partners at similar levels. Also, I don’t think Gessner was arguing that the book surplus would reduce the human relationship participation rate and thus the fertility rate. If you’re referring to other “smart people” of the time, who are they?
Perhaps a better analogy would be with romance novels? I understand that concerns about romance novels impacting romantic relationships arose during the 18th and 19th centuries, much later.
Aside: I was unable to find a readable copy of Conrad Gessner’s argument—apparently from the preface of the Bibliotheca Universalis—so I am basing my understanding of his argument on various other sources.