- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- aicompanions@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- aicompanions@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
That’s basically AI pr0n for women.
“Within the next two years, it will be completely normalized to have a relationship with an A.I.,” Ms. Cole predicted.
We haven’t managed to really normalize anything outside of cis-hetero relationships yet and you’re telling me we’re gonna normalize relationships with a.i. in two years? Sure.
I know couples who are still embarrassed to admit they met over internet chats surrounding a game. An ex of mine met her husband in WOW 20+ years ago and they still claim their first meeting was a blind date despite she was in NY at the time and he was in Florida.
And I know people who express their same story proudly.
Anecdotes are fun!
People fervently believe what they desire, regardless of evidence to the contrary. It’s a really annoying fact of human nature sadly few people are able to resist.
She wants it to be normalized so that her situation will be validated, and so she naturally believes it will be. Not an unusual behavior at all. Even scientists who should know better (fusion power within the next 10 years! GAI within the next 5 years!) are susceptible.
Him
That is kind of sad. Almost like having someone fall in love with tv because they think people on it are talking to them.
What’s sad is that attention-seekers constantly claim to be in relationships with AIs, cars, buildings, bowling balls, page 763 of a particular edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and probably colors. They’re all full of shit and trying to get some publicity from the brain-dead credulous media.
I’ve seen this movie
Michael Bluth: “Her?”
Narrator: “But he didn’t mean the critically acclaimed 2013 movie ‘Her,’ but instead the 1991 classic ‘Mannequin 2:On the Move.’”
Cut to GOB driving the stair car with a mannequin in a wig tied to the top.
“Tell me I’m calling you GPT, answer me GPT.” Great song by Stayc about being in a one sided relationship where the other person only answers questions but never asks anything back GPT
Yeah, I actually just read that one a few minutes ago. And man, I’m incredibly torn on this whole thing.
On one side - good it makes that person happy. On the other side - being entirely reliant on a commercialized, sycophant AI that could be used for manipulation, investing large amounts of money in it…
I’ve had LDRs before - one could argue it’s similar there, just “text on a screen”, or calls via digital audio. However I always knew there was a human behind those texts and the voice I heard was real, a person with a personality, experiences, strengths and flaws. The feelings they have are real, or at least one can hope they are assuming one isn’t with a manipulative POS (that’s not an issue exclusive to LDRs, though).
Here you chat with text generated by a company, accuracy having been wildly clowned upon already and I’m sure we’re all ware of this here. Of course the LLM is going to always agree, why would the product of the company actively try to drive away their customers?
Adding the fact that all the personal information will obviously be harvested, used for training the LLM and other stuff… Detailed information about the daily life is provided to the “AI boyfriend”, allowing detailed recreation of everyday life.
Bleh.
It may look innocent until the Chatbot nags you about buying that very cool new product they’ve heard so much praise about. This is very dangerous and needs tons of regulations.
Everything you all are saying can happen in regular relationships too. A person willing to choose an AI likely isn’t going to be great at choosing an actual human who is good for them.
In a relationship, the other person could also be manipulative, or it could be one sided, or they can pressure you to only live certain ways, buy certain things. Or they can backstab you and give your private info to others (family that took my SS info from my parents), or pawn your shit, or cheat on you with others. Like everything negative that might come from this could potentially happen in some remotely similar way in a human relationship too.
I’ve been in and seen others in all kind of relationships that in some ways had these similar negative outcomes.
Or convincies you to kill your parents: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/10/tech/character-ai-second-youth-safety-lawsuit/index.html
CNN bleh
would you believe it if it came from FOX?
No and that’s not my point. Fox news is slanted just as much as CNN. I mainly only get my news from Reuters and APnews (not including tech news). I recommend you to look at resources like Media Bias Factcheck or an app called Ground News.
I’m not american, so I consume neither CNN nor FOX, it just sounded kinda maga to so casually dismiss CNN
I don’t see it as good at all. It’s not a person and in my opinion it’s unhealthy to romantically love something that isn’t human.
It might feel good, but it’s likely not healthy.
I agree, I don’t think it’s likely going to be helpful to mental health in the long run either, based on my totally unprofessional opinion.
I’ve argued with a friend about it who isn’t a tech-person at all. She just says “yeah, it’s her problem” and doesn’t seem to grasp that my issue is not with her doing it as an individual - instead with the fact that it’s possible and the greater societal ramifications it is likely to have.
I’ll make an AI boyfriend, too, and talk to him about it, that’ll show society!
Probably futile to discuss the health or ethics of it without first figuring out if people in the discussion share similar beliefs on what the meaning/purpose of life is.
Cuz if you’re talking to a nihilist who thinks it’s all shadows and dust at the end of the day, you’ll get a very different discussion that someone who thinks family and procreation are the point of life.
Well, that’s just sad.
Also, does this person actually want a partner, with thoughts and opinions of their own, or something that fits their idea of an “ideal” partner, and will never disagree with them or challenge them?
Read the article. It’s an interesting one.
If AI were sapient/sentient, I’d be 100% for this. Sapiosexuals assemble!
Given that LLMs are far, far from sapient/sentient at this point, however, this just makes me sad thinking about the sorry state of human interactions nowadays. I don’t and can’t blame her, though…
Unless you own the AI model, and can run it on your own hardware, it’s profoundly stupid. People will become slaves to the corporation who holds their AI relationship hostage. They can kill your “loved one” at any time, for any reason.
I fail to see how that is significantly different than what we have nowadays with humans.
We are dependent on large corporations already, some of us just materially while others ideologically as well.
We are denying healthcare, food, water, and shelter to people who can’t afford ridiculous prices or hold the wrong social status or have the “wrong” beliefs, skin colour, sexual orientation, gender identity, (etc., etc.) which is essentially killing them. That’s if we don’t just outright decide to ““liberate”” some other nation from whatever arbitrary reason and start carpet bombing civilians in hospitals because a handful of terrorists are supposedly active within said nation.
Catfishing has been a thing since the inception of third-party dating, and scams were a thing since before recorded history. Lying is as old as sentience itself.
By Kashmir Hill, always well written articles.
A tech bros wet dream comes true.
I’ve just thought that LLMs are good for two opposite kinds of people:
-
The obvious, psychopaths or people behaving like them, who think they’ll distort the concept of truth and possessing such technologies will make their approach to society easier.
-
The people like me, who know that no random message written or picture drawn can be trusted anyway, so it’s better to overload the humanity with fakes so that it learned this simple truth.
I think both are right to some extent. Still it won’t work the exact way they want.
It’s like when Bolsheviks, when fighting illiteracy, basically conditioned people literate in first generation to think that everything officially printed is true, even that something being officially printed is identical to true, and that the religious darkness and ignorance is to doubt that. Like - blind belief is science and knowledge, and skepticism is darkness and ignorance. What could go wrong.
And then in Stalin’s years there were shortened evening education courses for workers. Where, well, they’d learn how to calculate something in some specialty, but without depth and context.
So you’d get a lot of engineers capable of really building and operating things and believing they could build and operate even more complex things (like spaceships eventually, or some planet-wide railway system, or whatever), but not understanding the context, the philosophy of science even. What’s worse is that they’d think they understand that well, because they’d have “scientific communism” about materialism and dialectics in their education.
So, back to the subject - they got a lot of people to believe all they officially printed on paper for a generation or even two. And those who didn’t would still indirectly believe a lot of it from their parents or peers.
But eventually, even if the damage is already done, right now not believing everything even from a “respectable” source is a good trait of many ex-Soviet people. Easier to notice among them than among Americans.
EDIT:
About that woman - this works too. She will see that a chatbot can’t provide depth when she wants it. I just hope she won’t feel too bad that moment.
-
