171–180 of 194 posts
We need to make up our minds if we want the next generations to have more or less sex. Teen pregnancies are way down but now it's a bad thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution selects for this. For the entirety of human evolution, it has been vastly more costly for women to reproduce than men (I don't even want to try to calculate how many children a man could produce in the 9 months it takes a woman to gestate one), so evolution rewards us for being as selective as we can get away with. Maybe the grass is always greener, but having to lower your standards to some slightly less a…
The 9 months part is just the beginning, by the way.
This is overblown as you're not actually competing over someone who's using an AI girlfriend since they have removed themselves from the dating pool. If someone's using it while in a real relationship, that should be addressed in therapy.
The therapist is also AI, owned by the same company who sells AI girlfriends, and it will assure you that an AI partner is normal and healthy and that if you download the McDonald's app you could get a free big mac.
What about that stock or crypto that Wall Street Journal article is talking about ?
Most young men are single. Most young women are not. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-yo... I guess I'm not surprised young men have turned to AI girlfriends.
That's not possible from a statistical standpoint unless men account for 80% of the total human population. And we know for a fact that it's a lot closer to 50-50. By extension, it means that if most men do not have a partner, then most women do not either.
It's a mathematical possibility, not that I think it's probable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a related phenomenon in women pursuing men who are already in marriages or relationships because they've essentially been pre-vetted and thus deemed desirable.
I guess that only works if the women don't mind being cheated on. If they get a man to cheat with them, they know exactly the kind of man they're getting.
I don't know why people are focusing on what men will do with AI girlfriends - the actual question is what women will do with AI boyfriends. On every single AI chat app like character.ai the majority of users are women, and the most popular characters are men. Women are people who read romance novels and are even more attracted by the "emotional validation". > Now we’re facing a future where guys could get addicted t…
The real question is a marketing/product one. Is the AI gf (or bf) a real replacement product or direct competition, or is this an alternative targeting a different segment? My guess is the guys using these AI gfs and amazed that they don't complain, argue, etc are already out of the dating pool. For example, there are plenty of guys that don't want to deal with arguments and other BS and wouldn't get married etc eve…
Perhaps some company will figure out how to simulate those aspects, but it sounds financially risky and ripe for exploitation.
I don't know why people are focusing on what men will do with AI girlfriends - the actual question is what women will do with AI boyfriends. On every single AI chat app like character.ai the majority of users are women, and the most popular characters are men. Women are people who read romance novels and are even more attracted by the "emotional validation". > Now we’re facing a future where guys could get addicted t…
Not specifically about women, but... I have met several women who regularly query ChatGPT for relationship advice. Accepting the response as authoritative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a certain validity to this, because prehistorically, many men were to large degree disposable. Now, not so much if you want a functional civic society.
Stop doing this. It's bullshit and it spreads like a disease.
Are you suggesting that mating success was probably at parity by sex for prehistoric humans? Because I would be very interested to know more about why you think that.
The last time I looked into it , it was thought that similar to many other species, female mate selection was the primary social driver of fitness selection , and that hyper-successful males effectively reduced the mating opportunities of less competitive males, while gestational opportunities were effectively at nearly 100 percent utilisation within a population.
If the thinking on that has changed for prehistoric humans (or pre-industrial ones) the reasons for that change of conjecture would be very interesting.
Or is it that you are suggesting that areproducrive men filled roles in prehistoric society in such a way that made them valued to the group in roles that were lower risk rather than higher risk? Because that would suggest that observed behaviour in modern pre-industrial societies was a newer innovation rather than a holdover from earlier behaviour, which seems like it would be difficult to substantiate. (Not that observations of indigenous peoples has typically been of a very high epistemological rigour)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, but there are many, many studies showing that on dating apps, it's 80% of the women choosing 20% of the men. Many women are also fairly ignorant about how unrealistic some standards (over 6' tall, makes over $100K/yr.) are.
Assuming those are your only two criteria, that narrows the population to 2.5%. If you throw age and relative health then all bets are off.
Even 1% of the US male population is still 1 million men to date.
I'm not sure if things are all as dire as people are talking about.