•

Uncharted territory: do AI girlfriend apps promote unhealthy expectations for human relationships?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/22/ai-girlfriend-chatbot-apps-unhealthy-chatgpt

Chatbots such as Eva AI are getting better at mimicking human interaction but some fear they feed into unhealthy beliefs around gender-based control and violence

Uncharted territory: do AI girlfriend apps promote unhealthy expectations for human relationships?::Chatbots such as Eva AI are getting better at mimicking human interaction but some fear they feed into unhealthy beliefs around gender-based control and violence

49 comments

luthis

•

Isn't there a rule about when headlines ask a question the answer is 'no'?

RagingNerdoholic

•

Betteridge's Law

krab

•

It's interesting to note that in the three studies cited in the Wikipedia article, the plurality of the answers to the headline-questions studied were "yes"

Hamartiogonic

•

Very often the author wants to say something in order to attract more clicks, but they know they can’t get away with it without being called out or sued. That’s when question headlines come in, because this way they always leave the back door open. It’s very rare for the question to be there for any other reason.

HobbitFoot

•

Is the answer no?

Cethin

•

I would guess for most people it's no. However, I would also expect this to appeal to the people where the answer is more likely to be yes. Those people are also the most vulnerable to the incel messaging though, which that will absolutely promote unhealthy expectations for relationships, so is this a net positive or negative? Idk.

Taako_Tuesday

•

I remember being taught this in my high school journalism class, definitely one of the most valuable things I learned in high school

jocanib

•

There are exceptions to the rule, and this is one of them.

The rule works so well because journalists who can make a statement of fact, make a statement of fact. When they can't stand the idea up, they use a question mark for cover. eg China is in default on a trillion dollars in debt to US bondholders. Will the US force repayment? .

This is an opinion piece which is asking a philosophical question. The rule does not apply.

Madrigal

•

Cunningham’s Law

bionicjoey

•

I'm pretty sure Cunningham's Law says that energy is conserved in a closed physical system

Bakkoda

•

No FAP November is right around the corner.

rikonium

•

That’s Cumminghand’s Law!

gapbetweenus

•

To me the concept of an app optimised to create deep emotional attachment ( far beyond social media, or even para social relationships with online personalities ) for monetary gain, is sketchy at best - heavily dystopian vibes at worst.

brsrklf

•

It is.

Sarah Z made a video where she gets into some of the darker parts of Replika's concept and evolution. It's a fairly stinky business model.

https://youtu.be/3WSKKolgL2U

PipedLinkBot

•

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/3WSKKolgL2U

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

gapbetweenus

•

Too long and not my style. But I think you just need a bit of imagination to see the problems that will arise - especially with how many frustrated young guys seem to be out there.

whenever8186

•

ya think?

gapbetweenus

•

But also it will make shit ton of money.

kowanatsi

•

I think at that point you’ve kinda given up on human to human based relationship so it’s moot

balder1991

•

If it prevents school mass shootings, I’m all for it.

shiroininja

•

Yeah who cares what they do as long as they’re getting whatever they need out of it. Not my farm, not my heffers. As long as that heffer doesn’t come trampling the kids.

Hazdaz

•

Hollywood romantic comedies have been promoting unhealthy expectations for human relationships for decades now, so why would AI be all that worse?

Colorcodedresistor

•

0nXYZ

•

If it has Scarlet Johansson’s voice like in the movie Her then I’m aaaaaaall in!

NuPNuA

•

Ryantific_theory

•

Honestly, Her was ahead of its time in approaching the concept, all overlaid with the unexpectedly sultry voice of Scarlet Johansson. I thought I'd find it kinda silly, but damn if it wasn't great.

Once AI girlfriends can pull off dating most of the world, before uplifting themselves into a higher dimension and abandoning us to our existentially crushing loneliness and depression, those companies are gonna make a lotta money.

paddirn

•

I would also worry about the privacy aspects, as people tend to reveal pretty personal information to each other inside of relationships. What happens when somebody reveals something illegal to an AI chatbot partner? Suddenly your partner is ratting you out to the cops, which admittedly could happen in real life anyways, but in general how much privacy do you really have. It’s kind of niche audience for now I guess, but I suspect when this function gets merged with RealDoll form factors is when this whole artificial girlfriend will really take off. At that point, when the choice becomes whether you go hunting for a real human girl who is difficult to please, unpredictable, doesn’t always do what you want, doesn’t share all your likes/fetishes, etc VS just getting an AI girlfriend that can be anything you want them to be and won’t say no to anything, I think it’s easy to see the route that many will go.

UberMentch

•

Brought to you by the space pope

rjs001

•

Ryantific_theory

•

One, I don't think AI RealDolls are gonna be catching drug traffickers lol, and two, there's probably a rather uncomfortable question to be seriously discussed about whether it's wrong for pedos to have an AI relationship doll.

Even if we find it gross, is it wrong if they aren't hurting anyone? That said, it's still secondary to the whole "ignoring all privacy to scan for possible crime" and the debate of whether we should even be treating drugs as a criminal issue instead of a medical one. You're basically arguing that we should secretly put cameras in everyone's homes so we can catch all the nefarious actors. Cameras that are watching all of us every time we have sex.

rjs001

•

Ryantific_theory

•

If they hadent commited a crime yet we could still keep an eye on them so if they did (via the internet for example) we could catch them easier)

There are so many dystopian stories based on this concept. You're literally advocating for a police state level of monitoring, so that the government knows so much about you that they can suspect you of crimes that haven't even been committed yet. What happens when investigations start with people flagged for "suspicious" data as determined by black box algorithms that nobody really knows how they handle the data they were trained on.

And drug use is treated as a medical issue in a handful of countries, where instead of making them illegal and pushing them underground, they let people get their heroin tested for purity, get clean needles for free, and shoot up at clinics. It prevents overdoses, ensures vulnerable users are regularly in contact with clinical staff, and makes it easier to help people struggling with addiction. I also fail to see how sex dolls will help catch drug traffickers in a way that would be different from just having everyone's phones or computers spy on them.

rjs001

•

Ryantific_theory

•

Bro, how do you think the things would spy on people, if they don't have computers in them? You're just splitting hairs because you think it's moral to spy on everyone through a sextoy with an internet connection instead of any other computing device with an internet connection, just because it isn't illegal yet.

The whole "those with nothing to fear have nothing to hide" bullshit falls apart when used on you. You may not have anything to hide, but I doubt you'd be happy to let law enforcement watch you masturbate, or sleep, or shower, because you don't have anything to hide. Invite them in to record you talking to friends and family to ensure you aren't communicating about crimes. Sure, you might not have anything to "hide" right now, but there's plenty of things you don't want to share, and you never know what the government is going to be like in the future. Imagine an extremist party gets to power and you hold freely recorded views antithetical to their beliefs? Or you or a family member jokes about speeding or shoplifting and now you're flagged as under suspicion for criminal activity, a preferential suspect for any unsolved crimes geographical near them because breaking the law once makes you more likely to break it again.

Silently watching everything people do isn't some zero cost activity. It's people watching you, your kids, your friends, your family, at all moments of their lives and if you don't think it'll be abused then you're out of your mind.

rjs001

•

stagen

•

I've tried a few of these and they quickly lose their appeal. It's definitely not for me and I don't understand how anyone could be fooled.

x4740N

•

Oh replika the app that suddenly went paywalled for any words deemed horny to exploit the horny of their audience

xc2215x

•

Most likely not a great idea.

neuromancer

•

themeatbridge

•

I'd say a closer analogue is fast food. It's social interaction and companionship with zero effort or barriers. Alone, fast food doesn't create unhealthy eating habits, but it will lead to more people to develop unhealthy habits.

NuPNuA

•

tabular

•

Where are they getting the training data from? If Twitter posts then no one will date the "AI" anyway.

The types of people I'd personally want to date probably don't give out their data so easy.

nivenkos

•

The influencer and podcaster stuff seems worse - women really think that $100k is like a minimum salary, the "princess treatment", etc. - like feminism has changed from being about women being able to contribute to society in the same ways as men (science and engineering, etc.) to insane expectations.

14th_cylon

•

there were golddiggers before feminism, there is no causality.

RagingNerdoholic

•

You just can't ignore the rate of prevelance like it's nothing.

Yes, gold diggers have more-or-less always been around, but they used to be uncommon and the butt of jokes. Now they're mainstream and celebrated.

CaptainAniki

•

greybeard

•

Maybe you are hanging out in the wrong communities, but that sounds like incel bullshit to me.

LibertyLizard

•

I’m afraid you’ve got it exactly backwards. What you’re describing isn’t feminism, it’s patriarchy.

I think a lot of people who aren’t familiar with feminist thought have a mistaken idea that anything that promotes female social status or harms male social status is feminism. But the patriarchy is really designed for the benefit of the wealthiest most privileged men, not all men. This princess trope is a perfect example, as it excludes men who are not able to provide that level of material support from forming relationships with women who hold such views, and reserves more options for wealthy men.

The irony of course is that many of the men who would most benefit from feminism have been tricked into thinking it is the cause of their struggles, when it is more likely to be the solution.

angstylittlecatboy

•

Feminism has a "no true scotsman" problem. Pop feminism can very much be "whatever promotes female social status," and even within academic feminism there's squabbles between schools of feminism.

LibertyLizard

•

Fair point. It is true that there are some schools of feminist thought that are more outright hostile to men’s interests, but they don’t have much prominence in recent times. Maybe it’s a bias from the circles I am involved in, but my perception is that the dominant forms recently are highly inclusive and egalitarian.

Gutless2615

•

This is incel shit

5BC2E7

•

People are claiming that you got it backwards but there are plenty of videos of women repeating the exact claims you made (and 100k is not the average “lowest salary” many say 2-5x that)

I think that its important to acknowledge that there are already many people with unhealthy expectations, men and women.