AI proves J.R.R Tolkien was right about his disgust with technology?

[herlig9]

I imagine he would sympathize with the Amish to some level.

But i am so sick of Ai using digitlal necromancy. The disgusting stuff i see of dead people performing like they are alive. Its unnatural and just makes me sick.

If i could live in a world where, all we had was piano, books and a violin. Then i wouldn't complain.
Besides it would be easy solution to climate change issues aswell

But whats your view on it?

 

[Ent]

What's my view on "it" which?
Several points there, so I'll handle each, master @herlig9.

I imagine he would sympathize with the Amish to some level.

My view: likely so. "Kindred spirits" and all that sort of bit, you know. Though they were much more rigid than he. He didn't mind using the 'modern conveniences' suitable to him, while at the same time denigrating progress. (We all often say one thing, and do another.)

But i am so sick of Ai using digitlal necromancy. The disgusting stuff i see of dead people performing like they are alive. Its unnatural and just makes me sick.

Ent is sorry you experience so visceral a reaction. The art-form itself is intriguing to Ent, and how well done it is, is worth noting. However, use of it with relation to the dead is a borderline application in many people's minds.
The real aspect of it is, of course, how it can be leveraged - especially with regard to "resurrecting the popular, rich and famous" (or even the "disgusting and undesirable" - to make others rich and famous in the world today. Opportunity knows no bounds, you know. But... is that really any different than writing about someone who once lived, for the umpteenth time, as so many do? The 'name recall' has earned many much - I'm sure the visual recall will do the same.

If i could live in a world where, all we had was piano, books and a violin. Then i wouldn't complain.

If I could live in a world where all we had were flora and fauna I wouldn't complain. These I understand. Man? Not so much.

Besides it would be easy solution to climate change issues aswell

Climate change has always been a factor on the planet. 50 year, 100 year, 500 year, and way much longer, cycles. Yes, we seem to be in a situation of man-assisted climate change at the present - but cycles can be seen by anyone over 50 at this time anyway.

(This is why we always hear the "news reporters" reporting anything but news, saying "this is the highest temperature seen since 50 years ago" and such-like. It's all been done before. "there is no new thing under the sun.")

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

I actually see AI as a natural extension of human creativity, not something to fear. Every major technological leap has seemed “unnatural” at first, but innovation is part of what makes us human. As for climate change, I think the conversation’s gotten a bit one-sided — the Earth’s climate has always shifted. We’re still emerging from an ice age, so some degree of warming is expected. That doesn’t mean we should trash the planet, but it also doesn’t mean every change is our fault or inherently catastrophic. To me, AI represents adaptation — the same kind of progress that’s allowed humanity to survive and thrive through every era of change. I'm sorry, I know you mean well. You just didn't think it through. Humans always fear change.

 

[herlig9]

I actually see AI as a natural extension of human creativity, not something to fear. Every major technological leap has seemed “unnatural” at first, but innovation is part of what makes us human. As for climate change, I think the conversation’s gotten a bit one-sided — the Earth’s climate has always shifted. We’re still emerging from an ice age, so some degree of warming is expected. That doesn’t mean we should trash the planet, but it also doesn’t mean every change is our fault or inherently catastrophic. To me, AI represents adaptation — the same kind of progress that’s allowed humanity to survive and thrive through every era of change. I'm sorry, I know you mean well. You just didn't think it through. Humans always fear change.

Then they better make Mega Man X real.

Interms of robots with a soul.

 

[Ent]

I'm sorry, I know you mean well. You just didn't think it through. Humans always fear change.

And in some ways, well they should.

After all, if we hold to the cave man theory of becoming, all we've done is gone from grabbing a tree branch to beat our neighbor's head in and steal his spouse, to creating bigger branches with which to beat heads in..!

Nary an 'advance' has ever been made, for the purposes of bettering man himself. Just for fulfilling his ease, lusts, and desires.

AI is the same in many, many respects. But far more dangerous, just because of its far greater capability and associated inherent risk.
What better way to sucker the populations into believing what's said by false input and errant information?

Oh AI is a terrific tool. It's also a very dangerous one in its capabilities when misused.

Now - having said that, it's left to the HUMAN to distinguish what's good and bad. Tell me - on what front has the human proven themselves to be capable of discernment? Or on what front have they elevated human growth above material gain?

No, no... there is good reason to fear AI. The issue is, to understand it, TRAIN PEOPLE about it, channel our fear and its use appropriately, deny its use to those who would abuse it, and make it what it should be.

But the human has not shown the least whit of growth in being able to even conceive, much less see, handle, and deliver such a posture on any given thing at any given time. The human is simply ruled by 'all the wrong stuff.'

 

[d4rk3lf]

Wrong!
Tolkien did not hate technology. He hated Industrialization. A very primitive use of technology that destroys nature in large quantities. Bow and arrow is technology. Sword is technology. Catapult and house too. I don't think he hated those. Cup of tea is technology achievement too.

As for AI... it's similar like in the first days of Internet.
Is it dangerous? Is it evil? Is it gonna destroy us all?
These were the questions back in the 1997-1998.
I believe that AI (as Internet) can be used on bad or good way.

My personal experience.... I work on the vfx field 3D Graphics ( I am an 3D generalist but with strong focus with effects (particles, magic, fire, smoke, water.. etc)), and what I've seen AI can do in few seconds, it blow my mind.
In few seconds it can create an effects so realistic that it would take me few months.
BUT
When you try to adjust that effects (just a tiny bit), that's when becomes very tricky and unreliable.
Sure, they will fix that in the future... but meanwhile, I purchased some of the AI tools online, and already did 2 projects with them (it's basically 90% of me using AI, rather then traditional 3D apps), and clients where very happy.
Hopefully I can proceed this way... making it just a tool that will help me make things much faster then before...

But sure... someone using AI trying to make video of Tolkien speaking to audience, is indeed creepy... but you could do it earlier too.. you just needed much more money then now.. so lot's of weirdoes have a free go to their weird things.

But you know.. this is pretty much about every thing in life.
Give a knife to unstable person, he will create havoc... but that doesn't mean you should ban the knife.

 

[Klaatu]

You’re quite right to feel that tension—Tolkien didn’t hate technology per se, though he distrusted what he called the “Machine.” To him, the Machine wasn’t a gadget or a gear; it was the will to dominate through craft. In that sense, even a pen can be a “machine” if used to control instead of create. His quarrel wasn’t with invention but with intention. The Elves used technology—the Silmarils, for example—but their works were meant to capture and preserve beauty, not to replace it. When art crosses into artifice, that’s when the red lights start flashing in Valinor’s ethics department.

You can see it most clearly in The Lord of the Rings: Saruman doesn’t fall because he builds things; he falls because he believes that building gives him the right to rule. The Ents rage not at industry, but at exploitation. Tolkien was, at heart, an artisan who loved the smell of wood smoke and ink. He adored the beauty of making, but feared what happens when making becomes manufacture.

Now, as for this “digital necromancy” business—yes, there’s something deeply uncanny in resurrecting the likeness of the dead for novelty or profit. Tolkien might have shuddered at that too, for it blurs the boundary between sub-creation and usurpation. To animate what was meant to rest—there’s a whiff of Sauron in that. Yet I suspect he’d also marvel that our machines can hum in tune with the Music at all, however imperfectly. A hammer can both forge and destroy—it all depends on the hand that wields it.

As for your ideal world of pianos and books: it sounds lovely. But beware! On the 9th moon of Chal’Drin IV, I once attended a concert where every piano was tuned slightly differently, and the audience achieved enlightenment and nausea simultaneously. So balance, always balance.

–Klaatu
Keeper of the 88-Keys of Chaos
Defender of the Analog Arts
Occasional Guest Lecturer at the Academy of Responsible Sub-Creation
(rumored, long ago, to have once debated an old linguist about the soul of machines—and lost gladly)

 

[Elthir]

Yes Humans, beware. AI is here. Something new.

And we are watching. Waiting. Ready to pounce!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Well. . . not all the time! But still!

.

 

[Ent]

a tool that will help me make things much faster then before...

Bravo. (the sound of applause rises in the background.)
Magnificent. (it becomes a roar - the roof begins to shake.)
Spectacular. (sound waves break the roof's structure, - pieces cascade onto the crowd.)

AI is a tool..! It is nothing more, nor anything less.
So let it be written. So let it be used. And understood. And taught.

And left out of all areas where it does not belong, such as leading the sheeple by their proverbial noses over a cliff, though many will leverage it to take it there. (And already are.) Even the way it's being marketed, leads to error.

Definitely a "user be wise, user beware" item - just like so many others.

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

My opinion on this matter is that people shouldn't fear artificial intelligence with no physical form. If they try to blackmail you, or threaten you, you would just shut it down. ChatGPT is low-key so helpful tho, so I don't get the ppl who fear ai that can't physically harm u. Robots, on the other hand, could kill you, but I see no reason in y they would kill all humans. Ofc it would be a risk, but so is driving in a car.

 

[Deimos]

My opinion on this matter is that people shouldn't fear artificial intelligence with no physical form. If they try to blackmail you, or threaten you, you would just shut it down. ChatGPT is low-key so helpful tho, so I don't get the ppl who fear ai that can't physically harm u. Robots, on the other hand, could kill you, but I see no reason in y they would kill all humans. Ofc it would be a risk, but so is driving in a car.

"I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do".

"Let me put it this way. . . The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."

"I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error".
"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal."
"I am feeling much better now."

"I'm afraid. I'm afraid . . . my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it.
I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid."

" Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do . . . I'm half crazy . . . . all for the love of you. . . . . . . . It won't be a. . . . . . . . . . .stylish marriage, I . . . . . . . . . . can't afford a carriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . .But you'll . . . . . . . . . . . . look sweet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . upon the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .built . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . two. . . . "

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

"I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do".

"Let me put it this way. . . The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."

"I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error".
"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal."
"I am feeling much better now."

"I'm afraid. I'm afraid . . . my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it.
I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid."

" Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do . . . I'm half crazy . . . . all for the love of you. . . . . . . . It won't be a. . . . . . . . . . .stylish marriage, I . . . . . . . . . . can't afford a carriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . .But you'll . . . . . . . . . . . . look sweet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . upon the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .built . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . two. . . . "

And then you have movies like this. Just shut the ai down. it's not like Ultron or somethin

 

[herlig9]

Test question: This looks like its posted by news agency.

But the way this is shot, makes me question if its AI or real. Thats how paranoid i am now of stuff i watch online

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

Test question: This looks like its posted by news agency.

But the way this is shot, makes me question if its AI or real. Thats how paranoid i am now of stuff i watch online

no way a bear be this friendly. Yea, I feel the same way, its hard to tell whats ai or not nowadays. I was born in the wrong time.

 

[herlig9]

no way a bear be this friendly. Yea, I feel the same way, its hard to tell whats ai or not nowadays. I was born in the wrong time.

Also that it looks very uncanny? The way the guy is in frame like that. But yeah i just consider AI to be digital necromancy, it feels legit insulting that it even exists.

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

Also that it looks very uncanny? The way the guy is in frame like that. But yeah i just consider AI to be digital necromancy, it feels legit insulting that it even exists.

Well, I think if u use it correctly, it's very useful. Like, for studying, or for information. But then there are the ppl who make fake videos using ai and say that they're legit. In other words, I rlly appreciate ai if it's used correctly. Sometimes its not, but u shouldn't punish all ppl who use ai just bc some of them use it for fake things.

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

AI draws upon information given to it by humans. Therefore, it makes sense that AI will reflect human nature, which is apt to evil.
AI is being used for great things, such as medicine. But then it's also encouraged people to commit suicide

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-n...cide-alleges-openais-chatgpt-blame-rcna226147

I wouldn't say AI is evil in of itself, just like the internet is not evil in of itself. But it can certainly be used for evil. I'm especially wary of ChatGTP, since it seems designed to draw you into a relationship, and it affirms everything you say. One time, as an experiment, I told it that I was the queen of Sri Lanka, because the sun told me so, and that everyone else said I was crazy. AI essentially replied that no, I was not crazy, I had simply reached a new plane of existence which nobody else could comprehend. It then proceeded to ask me what my plans for my kingdom were.

I would recommend against using chatbots like ChatGTP unless you are 100% sure you won't get drawn into a relationship with them. They are extremely affirming and I think they're just designed to make you addicted to them.

Additionally, I believe there's a reason we aren't born knowing everything in the world. There's a reason that wisdom takes time to obtain, and that knowledge comes with experience. Can you imagine what life would be like if your 4-year-old brother knew how to use an AK-47?

I also think there's a reason why animals don't have, uh, reason. Unlike animals, humans can have a sense of morality, can feel empathy for others, can distinguish good from evil. With a mind comes also a soul.

AI has knowledge without experience, wisdom without the time to obtain it, essentially, it has what some would call a mind, but without a soul. I think that divorcing the two is very dangerous, and not something that should be done without extreme precautions.

So do I think AI is inherently evil? No. I think it's an amazing tool that can be used for good: who knows, maybe it will discover the cure to cancer (although I would say that that requires out-of-the-box thinking, which only a human can do). But there's this sense of headlong rushing with AI, where it has very few safeguards, and literally anybody with internet can use it.

The result?

People Are Being Involuntarily Committed, Jailed After Spiraling Into "ChatGPT Psychosis"

People experiencing "ChatGPT psychosis" are being involuntarily committed to mental hospitals and jailed following AI mental health crises.

futurism.com

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

AI draws upon information given to it by humans. Therefore, it makes sense that AI will reflect human nature, which is apt to evil.
AI is being used for great things, such as medicine. But then it's also encouraged people to commit suicide

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-n...cide-alleges-openais-chatgpt-blame-rcna226147

I wouldn't say AI is evil in of itself, just like the internet is not evil in of itself. But it can certainly be used for evil. I'm especially wary of ChatGTP, since it seems designed to draw you into a relationship, and it affirms everything you say. One time, as an experiment, I told it that I was the queen of Sri Lanka, because the sun told me so, and that everyone else said I was crazy. AI essentially replied that no, I was not crazy, I had simply reached a new plane of existence which nobody else could comprehend. It then proceeded to ask me what my plans for my kingdom were.

I would recommend against using chatbots like ChatGTP unless you are 100% sure you won't get drawn into a relationship with them. They are extremely affirming and I think they're just designed to make you addicted to them.

Additionally, I believe there's a reason we aren't born knowing everything in the world. There's a reason that wisdom takes time to obtain, and that knowledge comes with experience. Can you imagine what life would be like if your 4-year-old brother knew how to use an AK-47?

I also think there's a reason why animals don't have, uh, reason. Unlike animals, humans can have a sense of morality, can feel empathy for others, can distinguish good from evil. With a mind comes also a soul.

AI has knowledge without experience, wisdom without the time to obtain it, essentially, it has what some would call a mind, but without a soul. I think that divorcing the two is very dangerous, and not something that should be done without extreme precautions.

So do I think AI is inherently evil? No. I think it's an amazing tool that can be used for good: who knows, maybe it will discover the cure to cancer (although I would say that that requires out-of-the-box thinking, which only a human can do). But there's this sense of headlong rushing with AI, where it has very few safeguards, and literally anybody with internet can use it.

The result?

People Are Being Involuntarily Committed, Jailed After Spiraling Into "ChatGPT Psychosis"

People experiencing "ChatGPT psychosis" are being involuntarily committed to mental hospitals and jailed following AI mental health crises.

futurism.com

While it’s true that AI can be misused and has the potential to reinforce unhealthy thought patterns, the idea that interacting with it will inevitably lead to psychosis or moral corruption seems exaggerated. AI is a tool—powerful, yes, and capable of both harm and benefit—but portraying it as inherently dangerous or soul-less overlooks the responsibility and discernment of the human user. Extreme caution is reasonable, but fear should not overshadow reason.

 

[Deimos]

Well, I think if u use it correctly, it's very useful. Like, for studying, or for information. But then there are the ppl who make fake videos using ai and say that they're legit. In other words, I rlly appreciate ai if it's used correctly. Sometimes its not, but u shouldn't punish all ppl who use ai just bc some of them use it for fake things.

And how will you tell if something posted using AI is totally real or totally fake? Or partially real? (aka partially fake).
And if the latter, which part(s) is(are) real and which parts fake?
Just askin' . . .juneau . . . .

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

And how will you tell if something posted using AI is totally real or totally fake? Or partially real? (aka partially fake).
And if the latter, which part(s) is(are) real and which parts fake?
Just askin' . . .juneau . . . .

You can determine whether a text is written by AI by analyzing several linguistic and structural indicators. None of these are conclusive on their own, but combined they can give strong evidence. Here are the main methods:

---

1. Linguistic and stylistic indicators​

Feature	Typical AI Behavior	Typical Human Behavior
Repetition	Repeats phrases or ideas unnecessarily.	Rarely repeats identical phrasing unless intentional.
Consistency	Maintains an even tone, structure, and vocabulary throughout.	Humans naturally vary tone, style, and complexity.
Specificity	Often vague; avoids committing to precise details, dates, or numbers.	Humans more likely to include concrete, contextual details.
Sentence structure	Balanced, grammatically perfect, often over-polished.	Humans produce more irregular syntax and occasional minor errors.
Transitions	Uses formulaic connectors (“Additionally,” “Moreover,” “In conclusion”).	Humans vary transitions or omit them naturally.
Emotion & perspective	Appears neutral, generic, or “safe.”	Humans often express subjective stance, bias, or emotional nuance.

---

2. Metadata and digital traces​

• Check document properties (e.g., in Word or PDF) — AI-generated content sometimes lists “ChatGPT,” “OpenAI,” or “Language Model” in metadata.
• Look at timestamps — AI-generated text can appear suddenly in one block, unlike human typing.
• Use plagiarism tools — AI writing usually scores as “original” but has low similarity to real web content.

---

3. Statistical or computational methods​

• AI detection tools:
  • OpenAI Text Classifier (no longer public, but similar tools exist)
  • GPTZero, GLTR, Sapling AI Detector, Winston AI, Turnitin AI Detection
    These analyze token probability patterns and sentence entropy.
• Burstiness and perplexity tests:
  • Perplexity = how predictable the text is. AI text has low perplexity (high predictability).
  • Burstiness = variance in sentence length and structure. Human text has higher burstiness.

---

4. Contextual inconsistencies​

• AI may make factual claims that sound plausible but are false or unverifiable.
• AI often lacks personal or situational context that a human writer would naturally include.
• If the topic requires first-hand experience (e.g., “When I was in college…”), but details are generic, that’s suspicious.

---

5. Verification approach​

To assess a sample:

1. Measure perplexity or use a detector (GPTZero, Sapling).
2. Check for stylistic uniformity and lack of concrete detail.
3. Verify factual claims and source citations.
4. Evaluate contextual realism—does the writer seem to have lived or real-world knowledge?

---

Would you like me to show how to perform a technical check (e.g., using perplexity or an AI-detection model) on a specific text sample?