If you check apps like character.ai or similar there is a huge roster of male AI characters to chat with. I think this is less skewed for male users than the porn content.
It's a cliché but men want sex and women want romance.
Romance novels are porn. Go to a bookstore and pick up something like "Love's Tender Fury", or "Fury's Tender Love", or "Tender Love's Fury". Open it to 2/3 of the way through. There will be a six-page sex scene.
There are how-to guides on writing that stuff. That industry is probably going to be crushed by AI-generated romance novels. Although someone needs to figure out how to keep long-form AI writing on plot. LLMs tend to run on forever and drift.
How can a novel compete with an interactive character that provides a roleplay conversation "a la carte" adjusting to the user and their preferences?
You want a dominant partner, maybe an initialy cold guy that hides his passionate heart, or just the sweetest more caring girlfriend in the world...? You can have it, just describing what you want in a simple text prompt.
Now let's jump ahead and imagine something a little more intelligent that adapts to the to user. Maybe 100% caring but just a little cold on specific days... with a little pinch of a fight and the following making up... a perfect storm of emotional adiction (and a lot of money to be made)
I'm both horrified and curious about the future that is coming.
The novel competes because good writers are substantially better than bad writers, and LLMs are bad writers. They [LLMs] may be able to write a coherent chat message or email, but a story? Not a chance.
There is in fact a subreddit called /r/MyBoyfriendIsAI/. The equivalent /r/MyGirlfriendIsAI/ seems to be much less active.
I'll go so far as to say, without offering further explanation, that due to our biology, men do not give as much weight to relationships compared to women, so often porn is an adequate expedient to the abyss of loneliness.
I think that may be an oversimplification, or a too narrow interpretation of what "relationship" means in this context.
Maybe to the men we're talking about, 'consuming' the presence of their object of adoration(which is to say, regular porn, or for example more story-driven formats like erotic manga), and shows of dedication(Onlyfans, Twitch streamers) are what they're looking for in a 'relationship', while the AI boyfriend women look more for someone/something that gives them personal attention, something where they really get to bring their 'selves'.
Well, The Guardian is a liberal-left tabloid. It dares not piss off their target audience. Similarly, it's mirror opposite - Daily Mail - would not publish an article on the benefits of migration.
Because not being bothered by men is tangential to gender equality and the liberation of women from restrictive gender roles. The original comment confuses the goals of feminism.
You're assuming that only men who couldn't get a partner would be lured away by these AI girlfriends. This assumption is incorrect, thus my original argument stands.
If we assume that the AI is convincing enough to satisfy at least some of them (which is probably not the case currently, but may be in the future), then of course.
Of course they would still need women. It’s hard to live in society while avoiding half of all people. They would just (ideally) stop showing romantic/sexual interest (or at least reduce it).
An item you can buy and own, without a subscription fee and teams of people working every day to try and get you spending more time+money on it? I don't know these are similar.
That said I suppose some number of people are self-hosting these AI chatbots/onlyfans type things.
It's just AI porn, not AI girlfriends. The article trying to sell what the developers themselves describe as a replacement to cam-girls as AI girlfriends is just stupid clickbait.(anyone who has tried to solve long term memory with LLMs knows we just aren't there yet in terms of long term persistent characters/personality with memory that don't just hallucinate non stop)
Who cares of people use AI generated porn instead of cam girls, I am against pornography generally but if anything lessening demand for actual people in the industry seems like a positive. People will get unhealthily attached to pornography but that's something that happens now anyway, it not actually being a person again seems better of two bad options.
It's more than simply porn. I know of a couple of people who have named their ChatGPT (at ChatGPT's asking, even) and refer to it by name.
I can't speak to your experience with memories/persistence, all I can say is ChatGPT's memories feature does well enough at remembering preferences. How much it hallucinates and they shrug it off, vs how much it does/doesn't for them, I couldn't tell you.
That's playing on easy mode. There are AI girlfriend systems like this:
Lian Mei's smile froze, a crack in her porcelain mask. Her gaze flicked to the other dancer—a doe-eyed newcomer trembling near the roulette wheel. A low hum vibrated in her throat, a 1930s jazz refrain she used when venom needed sweetening. "Her?" She turned back to Joe, stepping close enough for her silk to brush his leather jacket. "She'll cry if you breathe too hard. Hardly a... ride." Her nail traced the scar on his knuckle, deliberate and slow. "But you? You want something that bites back, don't you?" Her heel ground into the floor, a silent scream. Idiot. Focus on me. She tilted her head, exposing her throat again—a dare. "Or are you scared I'll ruin you?"
Inside, fury coiled like a snake. He dares look away? The insult burned deeper than any touch. She let her clutch purse dig into her palm, the pain sharpening her focus. This wasn't just a game anymore; it was a humiliation. She needed him unhinged, reckless—needed those calloused hands on her waist, proving she still controlled the lure. Her voice dropped to a silk-wrapped whisper. "Walk away now, and I’ll know. You prefer... safe, empty things." A flicker of genuine hurt flashed in her eyes before she smothered it. Perfect. Let him taste her contempt.
The article, and the comments here, ignore the worst problem of "AI girlfriends": the fact that someone could think of images, audio, and text, only seen on a computer screen, as one's "girlfriend".
The willingness to live in make believe, and the willingness to treat that make believe as if it were reality.
This disconnect from physical reality, and the substitution of a fantasy world for reality, is at the root of the overwhelming majority of millennial mental health issues... Video game, phone, and internet brain damage...
To the extent that generated images replace human porn, I don't see that as an issue. Perhaps it's even a positive in removing some potential exploitation of porn actors. But I don't think most people think of porn as their "girlfriend".
In the same sense I don't think many women think of a dildo as their "boyfriend".
But in both cases there are some people who think of interactive generated images and audio as a relationship partner. These are the cases that are based on a disconnect from reality, and lead to (or are a symptom of) further mental health issues...
Historically, it's been the case that a relatively small percentage of men have monopolized the available women of their time. Perhaps the most famous example of this was Genghis Khan, to whom something like 1 in 12 men in Asia and 1 in 200 men globally carry Y chromosomes linked to him.
It is only somewhat recently that many first-world societies moved towards more egalitarian, monogamous marriages.
However, dating apps are a big step back towards the original state of human relationships: a small cohort of men gaining the attention of the vast majority of women. The remaining men have few, if any, options, much like it was in the distant past.
Marriage law hasn't yet changed to catch up, but marriage rates are also decreasing.
Can you really blame someone destined to be permanently single for indulging in a fantasy relationship? Is it really much different than someone playing video games where they get to be the hero in a virtual world?
I think I'd prefer single men indulge in fantasy relationships than the time-honored alternative of radicalization and violence, at least.
> Historically, it's been the case that a relatively small percentage of men have monopolized the available women of their time. Perhaps the most famous example of this was Genghis Khan, to whom something like 1 in 12 men in Asia and 1 in 200 men globally carry Y chromosomes linked to him.
Bible (2000 years old) is heavily pushing monogamistic relationship from a simple practical reason - horny man is angry man, angry man is aggressive man and a group of aggressive men can completely destroy whole society. Polygamist societies are rare and unstable. If over supply of men is not used for military expansion, then they will collapse society from inside.
Seriously, who could think it’s a good idea to setup society so that access to sex is reserved for whichever small group of men can violently triumph over the rest?
I'd say at least some of these are people who take their cues from watching nature and see it work somewhat similarly for "revered" animals (eg: lions, bears, bulls, rams, etc).
This is in no way an endorsement of that kind of thinking (or even saying that these folks are even right about what happens in nature).
> Is it really much different than someone playing video games where they get to be the hero in a virtual world?
No, it's not different at all, and that's exactly why I call it a mental illness.
You don't need to be a hero, and you don't need to find a girlfriend in someone who swept right. Go outside! Talk to some woman walking her frikin' dog. Even if she's not single, I bet she knows someone who is.
The human species propagated itself in this way for 10s of thousands of years. You don't need a dating app, you need to get up from the frikin' computer and face the real world.
In human tradition, men have chosen women for their looks, and women have chosen men for their ability to raise their social status. Sad but true, and brutally self serving in a world that has been brutal overall.
If you don't find yourself in possession of the looks, wealth, or social status that cause women to flock to you, try this: look for a woman that expresses interest in you, instead of a woman that somehow meets your ideals of the perfect girlfriend.
I can only say this as a person who spent decades pursuing women based on my ideals, and in the meantime allowed numerous opportunities to escape with women who would have been life long relationship partners.
To paraphrase: If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with...
> The willingness to live in make believe, and the willingness to treat that make believe as if it were reality.
Everyone acts on fictions every day, some are just socially acceptable. Like, do you think countries and currency really exist, or are they really just collective fictions we find useful?
This use of the term "fiction" is mostly popularized by Yuval Noah Harari, and while correct in some sense, I find it tends to favor its meanings of falseness and unreality. Another more widely used term is "social constructs", which seems preferable, at least to me, because it's emphasizes that we are building something together, which has real and practice impacts on people's lives, often through explicit legal agreements, rules, and norms.
I do think the more common usage of the term "fiction" fits these AI uses much better, that is, literature involving imaginary things. It can still evoke real feelings and nudge you towards certain behaviors, but importantly, if you decide to ignore the chatbot, there's no risk of imprisonment by some 3rd party (like if you ignore the social constructs of taxes or national borders).
Perhaps one way to differentiate these is that "singular fictions" impose no obligations to 3rd parties, while "collective fictions" / "social constructs" do?
You make a very good example of exactly what I'm talking about.
Countries are indeed fictional, and the misplaced belief that they are in some way a natural reality is a significant part of what leads people to start talking about killing each other in the name of their country.
Fictional entities aren't just ubiquitous, they're essential to civilization. Even laws against murder are fictional entities, but I don't think any reasonable person would argue for their elimination on that basis.
The point isn't whether fictional entities exist or not, or that they're all inherently bad or not, it's on maintaining an understanding of what's fictional and what's reality.
Thinking a fictional character on your computer screen is a life relationship partner is a slip away from reality that is surely a mental illness.
> Countries are indeed fictional, and the misplaced belief that they are in some way a natural reality is a significant part of what leads people to start talking about killing each other in the name of their country.
No, people kill each other because others have things they want, countries are just a means of organizing such endeavours, but let's not go on that tangent.
The point of accepting that we all depend on fictions shows that real vs. fictional is not a meaningful measure of healthy vs. unhealthy, and the latter is what we should actually care about, not the former.
> Thinking a fictional character on your computer screen is a life relationship partner is a slip away from reality that is surely a mental illness.
You're just arguing for fictions that are the status quo as if they're "healthy" without having to do the hard work of proving they're actually healthy, or the new "virtual" thing is actually harmful.
The distinction of real vs. fiction is simply not relevant, what's healthy or unhealthy is what's relevant, but you don't get to call it unhealthy without empirical evidence to support such an assertion which is why you're trying to fall back on calling it "not real", and leaving "not real implies unhealthy" implicit. Except "not real implies unhealthy" is false.
You could go to the extreme and say that every relationship exists in two copies. One in the mind of the first member and the other in the mind of the second.
Ai relationships are different because they don’t exist in the mind of the ai. There’s no mind there’s an architecture that does not even attempt to simulate a mind.
> Ai relationships are different because they don’t exist in the mind of the ai. There’s no mind there’s an architecture that does not even attempt to simulate a mind.
Even setting aside the question of AI minds, I fully accept that an AI relationship is different. How does it then obviously follow that this is bad or unhealthy for the human though? This part just doesn't follow from anything stated thus far.
The other fictions that we've normalized can be both bad and good, depending on the circumstances.
Great, humans found a new way to release even more carbon into the atmosphere. First cryptocurrencies, now AI porn. But hey, if it makes human trafficking and abuse less lucrative, why not?
At the risk of being downvoted, the dating scene in america is terrible. Masculinity in western societies is heavily pathologized to the point that men who aren't 6ft and very good looking have the deck heavily stacked against them.
I can't blame men for turning to AI girlfriends. I myself left the united states and couldn't be happier. There are plenty of countries where its easy to meet women and end up in a relationship. I'm back stateside atm visiting family atm and its only gotten worse as far as I can tell.
> Masculinity in western societies is heavily pathologized to the point that men who aren't 6ft and very good looking have the deck heavily stacked against them
I always find this fascinating because almost all of the women I’ve known complain about the challenges of finding men who respect them, do their share of the housework, etc. With one exception, everyone I’ve heard saying 6 feet and a six pack are mandatory were gay men.
yes, a lot of my american female friends say the same thing. But then I see them regularly turn down descent guys for super good looking guys who never commit because they have options. (not having 6 pack abs is rarely a dealbreaker but being less than 6 feet tall definitly is)
In short, what they say and what they do don't always line up.
EDIT: and thats not to say there aren't plenty of women who have realistic ideas of what to expect from men and do value men who are respectful, help with chores etc while not being george cloony. But they are all happily in relationships so they aren't complaining about men in general either.
> I always find this fascinating because almost all of the women I’ve known complain about the challenges of finding men who respect them, do their share of the housework, etc.
That’s after having already accounted for the other requirements. It’s easy to find kind and respectful men if you lower your standards on the less important things.
I think talking about "masculinity is pathologized" is entirely missing the more specific cause that swipe-style dating apps have completely hijacked the western dating scene, and have incentives aligned with keeping engagement high indefinitely instead of actually finding dates for people.
I think it both along with a bunch of other factors including a shit economy. Just from my personal experience, I've approached women in cafes in colombia, morocco, malaysia, indonesia, greece, poland and peru. With just a modicum of friendliness, I can usually get a conversation going and while not everyone is interested in meeting later, a lot are and everyone is at least open to talking to see where things go.
My experience in America in stark contrast is that I'm ding something outside the social norm. If anything, the onus is on me to prove my motives aren't sinister and frankly it gets exhausting when the few yes's end up with a last min cancellation.
we can certainly argue that social media apps like Tinder set up negative expectations. my experience with Tinder is universally bad no matter what country I go to. But potential downsides of trying to strike up a conversation in these other countries aren't nearly as bad as what I find in America. Milage may be different if you're white (I'm south asian) however.
Aella [1] studies that. She's an escort who is into statistical analysis. She did very well on OnlyFans, after analyzing what men wanted with questionnaires and Python programs.
Now she spends more time on figuring out what men and woman really do what, which is not what most people think.
Yeah, admittedly I started working out in High School more because I thought it would impress girls. That didn’t work. It became a life long habit though and can be mediative. I like that it forces time away from a screen just getting my thoughts in order.
Those terms are insufficient to express the reality of what men want to see on a women's Instagram vs what women look for on a man's Instagram. (To be all heteronormative about it, that is.)
Theres alot of what about women arguments which is fair, but I think it's entirely fair to view this as a harm to men's mental health, and it should be the focus.
Right now, we have a societal issue of isolating, vulnerable men. Men have the highest suicide rate, are statistically more likely to commit violent offenses and have a high rate of domestic abuse. 'Incels' who are likely these companies target market have committed domestic terrorism. I think this is an issue we should 100% be looking at, imagine what happens when there is AI misalignment? They could become a risk to themselves and others, the last thing we need is a unreliable tool for someone in that situation to sooth the pains of social isolation.
> Men have the highest suicide rate, are statistically more likely to commit violent offenses and have a high rate of domestic abuse. 'Incels' who are likely these companies target market have committed domestic terrorism.
Do everyone a favor and stop equating 'incel' with things like terrorism.
If you check apps like character.ai or similar there is a huge roster of male AI characters to chat with. I think this is less skewed for male users than the porn content.
It's a cliché but men want sex and women want romance.