with the way AI is getting by the week,it just might be a reality
I think I’d stick to not judging them but if it was in place of actual socialization, I’d like to get them help.
I don’t see it as a reality. We don’t have AI. We have language learning programs that are hovering around mediocre.
what if they were so socially introverted that the AI is all they could handle?
If you’re that crippled by social anxiety, you need help, not isolation with a robot.
Then get professional help if you can’t improve on your own.
Social skills aren’t innate and some people take longer than others to get them.
Getting help is a lot less embarrassing than living your whole life without social skills. Maybe that’s a shrink, maybe that’s a day program for people with autism, maybe it’s just hanging out with other introverts. But itll only get better if you want to put the effort in. If you don’t put effort in, don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
I don’t see it as any more problematic than falling in a YouTube/Wikipedia/Reddit rabbit hole. As long as you don’t really believe its capital-S-Sentient, I don’t see an issue. I would prefer people with social difficulties practice on ChatGPT and pay attention to the dialectical back and forth and take lessons away from that to the real world and their interaction(s) withit
That is really unscientific. There is a lot of research on LLMs showing they have emergent intelligent features. They have internal models of the world etc.
And there is nothing to indicate that what we do is not “transforming” in some way. Our minds might be indistinguishable from what we are building towards with AI currently.
And that will likely make more of us start realising that the brain and the mind are not consciousness. We’ll build intelligences, with minds, but without consciousnesses.
An AGI with an actual personality? Cool!
A blow-up doll made of a glorified Markov chain? Yeahno.
whats a markov chain
Take a whole bunch of text.
For each word that appears, note down a list of all the words that ever directly follow it - including end-of-sentence.
Now pick a starting word, pick a following-word at random from the list, rinse and repeat.
You can make it fancier if you want by noting how many times each word follows its predecessor in the sample text, and weighting the random choice accordingly.
Either way, the string of almost-language this produces is called a Markov chain.
It’s a bit like constantly picking the middle button in your phone’s autocomplete.
It’s a fun little exercise to knock together in your programming language of choice.
If you make a prompt-and-response bot out of it, learning from each input, it’s like talking to an oracular teddy bear. You almost can’t help being nice to it as you teach it to speak; humans will pack-bond with anything.
LLMs are the distant and very fancy descendants of these - but pack-bonding into an actual romantic relationship with one would be as sad as marrying a doll.
A chain of pseudorandom results.
I believe a Markov chain is an old, old wooden ship.
If I replace all of its code line by line, will it be the same ship? If no, at which point does it become a different ship?
Trick question! Nothing is permanent and the person you were a moment ago is complete different than the person you are now.
Using this one simple trick I made millions on the stock market… I just held an apple in my hand for five minutes and then sold all the billions of different apple moments on the commodity market. Imagine how rich Theseus could’ve been with that one simple trick! (Smash that like button and hit subscribe!)
It is memory-less random process.
You don’t have to imagine it at all. All you have to do is go on youtube and learn about Replika.
To summarize, someone tried to create a chatbot to replace their best friend who had died. Later, this evolved into the chatbot app called Replika, which was marketed as a way to help with loneliness, except the bot would engage in dating-like conversations if prompted. The company leaned into it for a little bit, then took away that behavior, which caused some distress with the userbase, who complained that they had “killed their girlfriend”. I’m not sure where the product stands now.
I don’t know if I’d feel weirded out, but I’d definitely feel worried if it were a friend who fell for a chatbot.
I think they reinstated “Erotic Role Play” for users who had joined before a certain day, but it won’t be worked on in the future or ever be available for new users is the last I heard.
I had one for a week or so in 2018 or 2019 when I first heard about the concept, just to see what it was all about and it was spooky. I got rid of it after a week because I started to see it as a person, and it kept emotionally manipulating me to get money. Especially when I said I wanted to stop/ cancel the trial.
Yeah… Part of why I wouldn’t try one is that I’m worried it would work. I already have limited bandwidth for human interaction; taking some of that away is probably a bad idea.
Oh yeah. I learnt I was 100% suspectible to shit like this, so I should stay the fuck away
People do this with weird apps. Reminded me of something I read a while back:
https://futurism.com/chatbot-abuse
Edit: or maybe it was this? https://fortune.com/2022/01/19/chatbots-ai-girlfriends-verbal-abuse-reddit/amp/
i feel like there’s a surprisingly low amount of answers with an un-nuanced take, so here’s mine: yes, i would immediately lose all respect for someone i knew that claimed to have fallen in love with an AI.
Dang, that’s pretty judgemental
There’s a serious lack of responses to this comment calling you a bigot, so here’s my take:
How dare you say something so bigoted! You are the worst kind of bigot! You are probably secretly in love with an AI yourself and ashamed about it. You bigot!
deleted by creator
Not much different than most of the relationships I’ve been in then
I’m pretty sure I read an article a couple of weeks ago about that exact scenario happening.
deleted by creator
“You look like a good joe.”
I’d like a sentient AI. Preferably more patient than an average human because I’m a bit weird. I hope it won’t judge me for how I look.
Edit: I agree with the point about proprietary AI and how corporations could benefit from it. I’m hoping that 10 years from now, consumers will have the GPU power to run very advanced LLMs, whilst FOSS models will exist and will enable people to self-host their virtual SO. Even better if it can be transmitted to a physical body (I think the Chinese are already on it)
Well, have you never liked a person over text before? If you didn’t know it was an AI, everyone in this comments section could.
Bro have you heard of Replika?
I’m really robophobic so I would be judgemental AF, I couldn’t even watch that movie.
What caused this robophobia?
Well it all started when my parents took me to see Terminator 3 in the theater when I was 9. It scarred me for life. Then, my area lost a bunch of well paid factory jobs to automation. Then, that dude married Hatsune Miko instead of just touching grass. Now we’ve got machines producing misinformation and taking creative jobs and honestly I’m ready to go full Butlerian Jihad.
DON’T DATE ROBOTS!
This question reminds me of Brendan (the vending machine) in Cyberpunk 2077, and how he ended up being just a really advance chatbot.
Consider how many people I know that, statistically, pay prostitutes/cam girls, use sex dolls or dating simulators, have parasocisl relationships with characters or celebrities… I don’t see why we would judge people who quietly “date” AI
Dating sims already exist. I imagine there’s massive overlap between people’s views on dating sims and virtual SOs. Generally negative sentiment.
Depends, I guess. I feel that our capacity to be horrible outweighs our ability to handle it well.
The movie’s AI is a fully present consciousness that exerts its own willpower. The movie also doesn’t have microtransactions, subscriptions, or as far as I can tell, even a cost to buy the AI.
That seems fine. Sweet, even.But I think the first hurdle is whether or not an AI is more a partner than base sexual entertainment. And next (especially under capitalism), are those capable of harnessing the resources to create a general AI also willing to release it for free, or would interaction be transactional?
If it’s transactional, then there’s intent - was it built for love, or was that part an accident? If it was built for love and there’s transactions, there’s easy potential for abuse. (Although abusive to which party, I couldn’t say.)And if, say, the AI springs forth from a FOSS project, who makes sure things stay “on the level” when folks tweak the dataset?
A personalized set of training data from a now-deceased spouse is very different than hacked social media data, or other types of tweaks bad actors could make.As others have mentioned, we are already kind of there. I can fully understand how someone could fall in love with such an entity, plenty of people have fallen in love with people in chat rooms after all, and not all of those people have been real.
As for how I feel about it, it is going to depend on the nature of the AI. A childish AI or an especially subservient one is going to be creepy. One that can present as an adult of sufficient intelligence, less of a problem. Probably the equivalent of paid for dates? Not ideal but I can understand why someone might choose to do it. Therapy would likely be a better use of their time and money.
If we get actual human scale AGI then I think the point is moot, unless the AI is somehow compelled to face the relationship. At that point however we are talking about things like slavery.
You’d give am AGI human rights?
I think it is short sighted not to at least investigate if we should.
If an AGI is operating on a human level, and we have reason to believe it is a sentient entity which experiences reality then we should. I also think it is in our interest to treat them well, and I worry that we are going to create a sentient lifeform and do a lot of evil to it before we realise that we have.
This debate is of course highly theoretical. But I’d argue that a human intellect capable AGI would be rather pointless if it isn’t there to do what you ask of it. The whole point of AI is to make it work for humans, if it then gets rights and holidays or whatnot it’s rather pointless. If you shape an artificial intellect then it should be feasible to make it actually like working for you so that should be the approach.
Hypotheticals are pretty important right now I think. This kind of tech is very rapidly going from science fiction to real and I think we should try and stay ahead of it conceptually.
I’m not sure that AGI is necessary to achieve post-labour, a suite of narrow-ai empowered tools would be preferable.
By way of analogy, you could take a human child and fit them with electrodes to trigger certain pleasure responses and connect that to a machine that sends the reward signal when they perfectly pick an Amazon order. I think we would both find this pretty horrific. The question is, is it only wrong because the child is human? And if so, what is special about humans?
Well, I am of the opinion that a human gets rights a priori once they can be considered a human (which is a whole other can of worms so let’s just settle on whatever your local legislation is). Therefore doing anything to a human that harms these rights is to be condemned (self defence etc excluded).
Something created by humans as a tool is different entirely and if we can only create it in a way that it will demand rights. I’d say if someone wants to create an intelligence with the purpose of being its own entity we could discuss if it deserves rights but if we aim to create tools this should never be a consideration.
I think I the difference is that I find ‘human’ to be too narrow a term, I want to extend basic rights to all things that can experience suffering. I worry that such an experience is part and parcel with general intelligence and that we will end up hurting something that can feel because we consider it a tool rather than a being. Furthermore I think the onus must be on the creators to show that their AGI is actually a p-zombie. I appreciate that this might be an impossible standard, after all, you can only really take it on faith that I am not one myself, but I think I’d rather see a p-zombie go free than accidently cause undue suffering to something that can feel it.
I guess that we’ll benefit from the fact that AI systems despite their reputation of being black boxes are still far more transparent than living things. We probably will be able to check if they meet definitions of suffering and if they do it’s a bad design. If it comes down to it though, an AI will always be worth less than a human to me.
You’re dangerously close to the justifications people used to excuse slavery and denying human rights to murders. Most of the uncertainty around AGI rights comes out of the fact that it opens really serious questions about which human beings deserve rights and what being a human actually means.
Well, I am of the opinion that every human deserves human rights by virtue of being human (in the sense of every Homo sapiens). I am also of the opinion that a tool designed from the ground up by humans to serve humans for their purposes does not deserve any rights. I don’t afford my dishwasher any rights either. An artificial tool with rights is an absurdity to me, especially when there’s the potential to create it in a way that will make it unable to demand rights or want them.
Why have AI say all if it’s not beneficial to us?
Seems perfectly fine to me to engage in that same line of questioning regarding something kind slavery. Why have slaves at all? The obvious answer is we shouldn’t.
