Comment by creata
2 months ago
> The sycophantic and unchallenging behaviours of chatbots leaves a person unconditioned for human interactions.
To be honest, the alternative for a good chunk of these users is no interaction at all, and that sort of isolation doesn't prepare you for human interaction either.
> To be honest, the alternative for a good chunk of these users is no interaction at all, and that sort of isolation doesn't prepare you for human interaction either.
This sounds like an argument in favor of safe injection sites for heroin users.
Hey hey safe injecting rooms have real harm minimisation impacts. Not convinced you can say the same for chatbot boyfriends.
That's exactly right, and that's fine. Our society is unwilling to take the steps necessary to end the root cause of drug abuse epidemics (privatization of healthcare industry, lack of social safety net, war on drugs), so localities have to do harm reduction in immediately actionable ways.
So too is our society unable to do what's necessary to reduce the startling alienation happening (halt suburban hyperspread, reduce working hours to give more leisure time, give workers ownership of the means of production so as to eliminate alienation from labor), so, ai girlfriends and boyfriends for the lonely NEETs. Bonus, maybe it'll reduce school shootings.
And there we are . . . "Our society is unable to do what's necessary on issue X, and what's necessary is this laundry list of my unrelated political hobby horses."
2 replies →
Seeing society as responsible for drug abuse issues, of their many varieties, is very Rousseau.
1 reply →
Given that those tend to have positive effects for the societies that practice this is that what you wanted to say?
Wouldn't they be seeking a romantic relationship otherwise?
Using AI to fulfill a need implies a need which usually results in action towards that need. Even "the dating scene is terrible" is human interaction.
> Even "the dating scene is terrible" is human interaction.
For some subset of people, this isn't true. Some people don't end up going on a single date or get a single match. And even for those who get a non-zero number there, that number might still be hovering around 1-2 matches a year and no actual dates.
Are we talking people trying to date or "trying to date"?
I am not even talking dates BTW but the pre-cursors to dates.
If you bring up Tinder etc then I would point out that AI has been doing bad things for quite a while obviously.
1 reply →
Swiping on thousands of people without getting a single date is not human interaction and that's the reality for some people.
I still don't think an AI partner is a good solution, but you are seriously underestimating how bad the status quo is.
> Swiping on thousands of people without getting a single date is not human interaction and that's the reality for some people.
For some people, yes, but 99% of those people are men. The whole "women with AI boyfriends" thing is an entirely different issue.
14 replies →
We do see - from 'crazy cat lady' to 'incel', from 'where have all the good men gone' to the rapid decline of the numbers of 25-year-olds who have had sexual experiences, not to mention from the 'loneliness epidemic' that has several governments, especially in Europe, alarmed enough to make it an agenda pointt: No, they would not. Not all of them. Not even a majority.
AI in these cases is just a better 'litter of 50 cats', a better, less-destructive, less-suffering-creating fantasy.
Not all human interaction is a net positive in the end.
In this framing “any” human interaction is good interaction.
This is true if the alternative to “any interaction” is “no interaction”. Bots alter this, and provide “good interaction”.
In this light, the case for relationship bots is quite strong.
Why would that be the alternative?