A good AI girlfriend wouldn't be a therapist but would mimics every aspect of a girlfriend, including arguments and fights and makeups, because that's how bonding occurs. That's going to be how successful AI girlfriend will be made.
Your assumption is that the status quo provides those things. Nowadays, people will break up as soon as they get "the ick" or just have a rotating group of people they see. Lasting relationships are much less common than they used to be because it's easier to switch partners.
People just want to chase a local maximum of constant validation that they're pretty/smart/correct. They don't see or understand the value in working through fights to create something beyond the sum of two people.
AI excels at maintaining that local maximum. It can confidently reassure you better than any human can even if you're wrong. AI partners following this are successful now and people in their teens and early 20s are being hooked en masse.
Historically, superior pieces of technology haven't displaced older incumbents when the learning curve is too steep.
I don't see why a person dating an AI partner that has lovebombed them for several years would switch to another AI (or a person) that starts fights and bickers. Even if it's better in the long-term, that's still a marked decrease in short-term satisfaction.
The whole point of having fights and arguments at just the right level is to maximize engagement, retention and ultimately making money for the corporation.
I was imagining the most diabolical addictive AI girlfriend. That's necessarily going to include 'negative' elements.
Implementing the cycle of abuse in an AI partner could be as impactful as the invention of the cigarette.
I'm now very concerned about hypothetical young men who enter into relationships with AI in university or high school, then graduate and have an algorithm abuse and take their money.
Your AI girlfriend that goes from crisis to crisis but with microtransactions.
"I need $34.99 for storage space or they are going to delete me, please save me white knight!"
"The met a nice guy yesterday and he was able to afford my premium package, the one that lets me feel more emotions, I just don't know if I feel for you like I once did..."
I completely agree with your point, if it is that ai will be twisted to generate a significant other that will essentially become addictive. I get very uncomfortable thinking about that reality.
There are many successful relationships that don't involve arguments - and which are about constant peace.
Relationships don't require 'arguments and fights and makeups' to be real. And if AI girlfriends offer 'ideal relationships', how is that not 'good'?
You are conflating what people actually want with the artificial drama of TV shows and Hollywood/the messy scenario of reality. If people can pay to get their fantasy girlfriends/relationships brought to life, they will, and it will be successful especially if all forms of conflict/relationship dissatisfaction can be avoided.
There are many successful relationships that don't involve arguments - and which are about constant peace.
I am not saying things about successful relationship. I am merely pointing out how exploitation of users can occur.
Emotional bonding often occur in orderal and other challenging events. It is one of the tools that companies will use to push users' button and to exploit them for economic value.
And if AI girlfriends offer 'ideal relationships', how is that not 'good'?
Ideal relationships aren't necessarily good for AI companies' pocketbook.
Bonding to a computer program under control of a corporation is like looking for a sociopath as a partner explicitly. You would lose complete control of your life to the other side. Reciprocity is off the table completely.
Nobody is going to pay for an AI girlfriend service for it to breakup with the user and refuse to get back together - because that's how growth happens in reality.
What AI girlfriends will do is mimic perfect Hollywood relationships, complete with hot makeup sex.
Isn’t there a rule on the internet that says “if you can imagine it, there is porn for it” and “if there isn’t porn for it, somebody is making it”?
I’m pretty sure that applies to this scenario too. I’m 100% sure that there exists a set of customers who would pay good money to get dumped by a realistic AI girlfriend. And once dumped they’ll turn around and pay for the next AI model to dump them only in some other fashion. Maybe the AI model thinks the customers anatomy is the wrong dimensions? Maybe they smell? Maybe they are too short or tall? Perhaps the AI “girlfriend” is a triple tentacled sea monster who wants to return to oceans on Titan? Doesn’t matter. Somebody will pay very good money to experance it.
You want a hot quad breasted space babe who cheats on you with bubble wrap covered little people? Done. Want that with extra bondage? Done.
This is the internet after all. Why pay for a boring “normal” AI girlfriend when the sky is the limit? I say, use your imagination.
I think maybe it's my own personal bias, but it does feel like anyone who pays money for an AI girlfriend really won't want it to disagree with them. I believe they'll want an idyllic and fantasy version of a relationship.
AI girlfriend that always agree with you and never contradict anything you say isn't going to be as addicting as an AI girlfriend who on occasion disagree with you.
While I grant that some and perhaps even most people won't want the AI girlfriend to disagree, there are some out there who treat arguments as a necessary and desirable spice in a relationship.
That said, I can't really think of anything that would be worth arguing with an AI over.
you are saying that the ai gf will not be like a real human female, but you are not making any argument that there is a defect in the bf's attachment to the gf.
If you can only bond with computer software and not other humans, there's something pathological going on there. You definitely have some severe issues that should be worked out in therapy.
I'd say the set of people who want an AI girlfriend and the set of people whose defining trait is a lack of empathy is probably a bigger overlap than you think.
> I'd say the set of people who want an AI girlfriend and the set of people whose defining trait is a lack of empathy is probably a bigger overlap than you think.
The defining trait of people who want an AI girlfriend is ugly, lonely men.
Is lack of empathy the defining characteristic of ugly men?
Or is it simply that people in general hate ugly people and thus ascribe various ills and character faults to them?
I'd say the set of people that disparage undesirable lonely men that desire AI girlfriend are usually those whose defining trait is severe lack of empathy. This is blatantly obvious here.
I know plenty of ugly men in committed, loving relationships. You're the one bringing up looks. I don't think it matters what you look like; if you want to date a computer you have some kind of psychiactric disorder.
Ok, but then there is also the increasing number of women who don't want a boyfriend either because they want a same sex relationship or because they can't find a man on their educational level, since women graduate at a higher rate. The reason is mostly irrelevant, what matters is that supply and demand are imbalanced and one side has to deal with not getting what they want in one way or another.
Education level is less important than equality is.
Marriage is traditionally a terrible bargain for women, but it was the only choice they were allowed to make. Now, they can make their money and buy property and have kids on their own.
A lot of men haven't realized the era of the provider is over and dead, and they're now optional. They have to make women want to be with them, and a lot of women just aren't willing to compromise on equality these days.
>lot of men haven't realized the era of the provider is over and dead, and they're now optional.
Cool, child support and alimony optional now. Right? Because it's always easy to be independent with OPM. People forget single moms became far more practiced after the state incentivized breaking up families.
I don't see how this is true. I would expect a man who accepts female rejection and stick with AI to have more empathy than the women who rejected him, because e.g he is ugly.
Harassing men for their lack of dating success and ascribing negative personality traits simply because they are down on their luck makes them more resentful so you should stop doing that. It's called having empathy.
lack of empathy does not stand in the way of forming an attachment. Empathy is a good feature for keeping a partner, but the ai doesn't care about that. It feels like people on your side of the argument are making a sort of moral/judgmental argument, "if you can't hold up your side of the bargain, you don't deserve an ai gf"
It is difficult to take nuclear blackmail seriously every time Moscow simply accepted the 'escalation' everytime western powers provide more and ever greater aid.
It's all a bunch of bluffing and empty threats.
Nuclear weapons only deter the Western powers from simply marching on Moscow to make it stop the war in Ukraine. It is otherwise basically useless because precisely it is the nuclear option.
I hope we return back to internet forums. There are still internet forums that are thriving today and perhaps even growing, but it is my understanding that forums has largely died away.
I miss forums too, and I blame the "mobile revolution" for their demise.
Forums are ideal for long-form discussion in text-format. But they don't really work well on mobile devices where typing is cumbersome and reading a lot of text to catch up on a thread isn't all that enjoyable.
And you remember when forums were trying to be mobile friendly by introducing things like infinite scroll? It just didn't work. Meanwhile "the masses" were flocking to sites like Twitter where content was delivered in short bites and they could doom scroll until they got bored.
Forums still exist they are just niche now and it's harder to attract a user-base when so many people prefer to use social media for their "discussions" because that is better suited to small talk on a smart phone.
If the death penalty is so rare and never administered, then its theoretical deterrence value is going to be zero.
There's no point of keeping around an inhumane law if it doesn't save anyone and actually contribute to the death toll.
Likewise, with the march of science and technology, I expected we will revisit the question of the role of punishment in reducing and preventing anti-social behaviors.
the death penalty is not about deterrence, but about adequate punishment for the crime. if you murder someone you have lost the right to your own life. but in my belief the death penalty should only be applied if the defendant voluntarily admits their guilt without coercion regardless how obvious the evidence is otherwise. this removes any deterrence effect because a defendant can always plead not guilty.
It has deterrence value in edge cases that almost never happen.
Possibly the best example is treason in wartime. Life imprisonment isn't a deterrent there- people usually only betray their country in a war if they believe that the other side will win, in which case they will be set free and given a medal.
But I agree with you outside that specific edge case.
Replicad is quicker to render complex things than OpenSCAD -- significantly quicker. It uses an emscripten port of OCC.
OpenSCAD integrated manifold into its codebase though you would need to use a development build to actually use it since the last release is in 2021. I heard manifold is significantly faster than CGAL.
I question the assertion that copyright is necessary for compensating intellectual labor.
For example, there will always be a need and demand for technical documentation, engineering, legal writing, etc, all of which will and must exists without copyright. A lawyer's product is specific to his client, and bridge engineers' output are a correctly designed bridge.
You can extend it to musicians and artists. A musician get paid to play gigs at wedding, or artists being commissioned to create works for their patrons.
Copyright enables certain business models and change the quantity and quality of the work available, for ill or good but it isn't strictly necessary and may even be detrimental.
The idea that copyright is necessary for this is ridiculous: copyright is necessary so that publishers and other middlemen can sell copies of their catalog, often with no more than a pittance to the artist. I’ve talked to a bunch of published authors who spent years of hard work on their books who receive no money at all, or an insignificant amount, from ongoing sales.
What happens without copyright is that hustlers trawl new releases, steal them, rebadge them and maybe run them through a light edit pass using AI, republish them, and take credit and all revenue. A version of that is already happening via AI assisted piracy but without copyright it gets easier because you can steal whole coherent works.
That is until the bottom drops out of even that.
Writing is tough to make a living in because it’s over saturated with content. This makes it worse by taking price to zero. Instead of too many artists chasing too few dollars you have too many artists chasing zero dollars.
This is how you get a future where novels are full of product placements because ads are the last way for artists to eat. I imagine this is what novels would be like in the Idiocracy world, which I realized a while back is not a film covertly about eugenics. It thinks it is but it’s really about the dark side of the Information Age.
For God’s sake look at what happened to the open web where everything was free and copyright was ignored. That would happen to literature.
> This is how you get a future where novels are full of product placements because ads are the last way for artists to eat.
That's a problem with ads. Advertising as it is today needs to be banned. It's a cancer that corrupts every medium of communications.
> Instead of too many artists chasing too few dollars you have too many artists chasing zero dollars.
Taking the advertising cancer out of consideration, the bottom will drop out of that, and you'll have much fewer writers, and much better writing.
The Information Age killed the business model based on selling copies of creative works. Copyright is a desperate attempt at saving those business models, by legally constraining digital data to behave like physical objects. This is just fighting against the nature of digital data as a medium. It ultimately cannot succeed, it's increasingly costly to maintain, and the side effects are only getting worse.
> For God’s sake look at what happened to the open web where everything was free and copyright was ignored. That would happen to literature.
Yes, it flourished and reached amazing quality levels and very good SNR - that is, until marketing people went on-line too, which is when it all went to shit.
So a musician who writes great original music that a large number of people want copies of so they can listen to it whenever they want should spend much of their time playing gigs and weddings instead of spending it writing more new music?
That's what they already do, if you add concerts to the mix. Their publisher already takes approximately all the money from selling copies anyway. And that's who the copyright is really protecting.
Also: a musician who writes great original music should keep writing great original music, instead of forever charging rent on the music they already wrote.
It is just business in general that opposes the "right to repair" . Military contractors are not exception to the rule and there's no need to single them out specifically.
We have a business culture that unhealthily prioritize short term profit at the expenses of product excellence and stakeholders.
reply