Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

freyaindia.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 194 posts

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#181

Post by true_religion »

tonymet wrote: post #40

We encouraged women to stop depending on men for security (financial, physical), but now we’re shaming men for trying to reduce their dependency on women (sexual , emotional) Id argue that the mutual dependency was a good thing. But why shame one and not the other ?

It's viewed that sexual and emotional dependency is normal. You want people who are forming family groups to need each other emotionally. Or if you don't want it, then you at least accept it's the natural 'cost' of coupling up and expecting people to raise children together.

Financial and physical security can be outsourced, and the wealthier people have always outsourced that to someone outside of their partners.

For example, one could expect the Queen of England didn't really need her husband to protect her, nor give her money. However, she might still naturally like to live with the man more than other people (emotional dependency), and have children with him (sexual dependency).

If you remove sexual/emotional aspects of a relationship then all you're left with is the transactional, and that seems inhumane.

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#182

Post by red-iron-pine »

mrweasel wrote: post #15
alexb_ wrote: post #5

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…

This might just be me being a bit cynical, but the men who would be raving about an AI girlfriend have already been buying a similar products from women on sites like OnlyFans. I don't think it's a massive difference.

real dolls, dakimakura pillows, OF subscriptions, strip clubs, etc.

been a lot of gap filling in there, and for a while. AI just weaponizes it.

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#183

Post by red-iron-pine »

meristohm wrote: post #166
fragmede wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The swaths of romance novels bear this out

Romance novels are books that anyone can read. The defining feature of Romance is a Happily Ever After; the conflict(s) are resolved and the world is put right again. There's are otherwise few limits, as far as I understand it, and some exceptions I'd still call Romance. A Court of Thorns and Roses (by Maas), for example, is a series with ongoing conflicts across the books. I can count on standalone Romance novels re…

comparing romance novels to 40k is like comparing apples to microwaves.

i also balk at the idea of "masculine romance" requiring over-the-top grimdark violence.

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#184

Post by red-iron-pine »

autoexec wrote: post #91
thot_experiment wrote: post #11

Say it with me, "if she ain't running on your metal, she's not your AI waifu". Support open source AI waifu development for the good of all mankind.

I'm sure companies are lined up to emotionally manipulate vulnerable people into an illusion of love and acceptance so that they can collect a record of people's most intimate conversations, thoughts, fears, desires, and hopes. They'll mine that data endlessly and sell it to anyone willing to pay, then accept money from others who want to use that AI partner to manipulate the customer. I'm not opposed to the idea of…

in other words, the ultimate end state of marketing. if they could mind control you they would, and an AI chatbot is probably as close as we can get without zapping your brain directly.

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#185

Post by K0balt »

K0balt wrote: post #179
libraryatnight wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop doing this. It's bullshit and it spreads like a disease.

Thanks for your thoughtful and informative reply. 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…

A anecdotal but interesting perspective came from my grandfather, who spent his youth among indigenous tribes of eastern Oregon in the 1880s. His many accounts of the “Indians” included the idea that younger, unmated, shamed, or less clever men would typically attempt feats of bravery to gain renown and credibility within their tribe, often being killed in the process.

While hardly epistemologically rigorous, this would seem to support the idea that lower status men in precolonial societies would voluntarily engage in high risk behaviour, often disposing of themselves in the process.

When you consider the frequency of death of women from childbirth related complications under such conditions, it makes sense that the mortality rate of men would need to be balanced by similar risks in order to maintain a stable, cohesive society under primitive conditions, and that the ones who would take those risks voluntarily would be the ones who had more to gain by doing so (elevating themselves from a status of comparative irrelevance to improve mate abundance and social status in general)

If these ideas have been contradicted by recent research, I’d love to know more about that. The field of evolutionary psychology is pretty hit and miss, and also really, really poorly understood by the layperson.

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#186

Post by red-iron-pine »

true_religion wrote: post #180
c0brac0bra wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The biggest filter outside of marital status is race and age. Yet minorities still manage to find people within their own ethnicity to date. 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.

that's 1 million men spread across the US. For comparison's sake, Greater NYC has ~22 million people. LA has a bit more.

1 million in a country of 330 million is nothing.

Plus there is competition, both in terms of other mates, as well as other priorities. Your ideal man may be in the military and disappearing in 6 months, or working 70 hours a week in a law firm.

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#187

Post by tonymet »

true_religion wrote: post #181
tonymet wrote: post #40

We encouraged women to stop depending on men for security (financial, physical), but now we’re shaming men for trying to reduce their dependency on women (sexual , emotional) Id argue that the mutual dependency was a good thing. But why shame one and not the other ?

It's viewed that sexual and emotional dependency is normal. You want people who are forming family groups to need each other emotionally. Or if you don't want it, then you at least accept it's the natural 'cost' of coupling up and expecting people to raise children together. Financial and physical security can be outsourced, and the wealthier people have always outsourced that to someone outside of their partners. Fo…

none of these aspects exist in isolation . financial, physical , emotional, security are all components of a relationship. every relationship requires dependency, commitment , vulnerability

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#188

Post by jlawson »

meristohm wrote: post #167
jlawson wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a combination of the Women-are-wonderful Effect [0] (which goes double when it comes to sexuality) and the universal lack of giving-a-shit about problems that men face. Men's sexuality is dangerous and unnecessary. Womens' sexuality is moral and precious. To say that womens' sexuality is causing a social problem is absolutely unacceptable in establishment cultural spaces. The other side of it is that nobody care…

Cry me a river. As a disillusioned beneficiary of White male supremacy, and a person who values diversity in culture and perspective (there is so much I don't know or understand yet, if ever, but the journey is engaging and meaningful), it sounds like you are whining. However. I care about everyone's problems, especially those who are unfairly oppressed (rather than just feeling unfairly oppressed because they've los…

It's fascinating that your response plays right into what I was saying.

You say I'm 'whining'. Imagine saying this to a woman who is complaining about womens' issues. It's never done.

To say someone is 'whining' is to say he is inappropriately weak. It's a notion that is targeted only towards men to force us into our social role where we can he useful to others. He needs to toughen up, act like a man, play his role. Stop whining! Your problems are your responsibility! Nobody else wants to hear it!

It's exactly what we're used to hearing over and over.

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#189

Post by jlawson »

alexb_ wrote: post #127
jlawson wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a combination of the Women-are-wonderful Effect [0] (which goes double when it comes to sexuality) and the universal lack of giving-a-shit about problems that men face. Men's sexuality is dangerous and unnecessary. Womens' sexuality is moral and precious. To say that womens' sexuality is causing a social problem is absolutely unacceptable in establishment cultural spaces. The other side of it is that nobody care…

> To say that womens' sexuality is causing a social problem is absolutely unacceptable in establishment cultural spaces. Woah there, when did I say any of this was a problem? Women should be free to do all of this, in fact I think more needs to be done to give women what they want as it's a market which people aren't giving proper consideration. > The idea that the men might deserve equal education for themselves isn…

I also agree women should be free, men should be free, etc.

Womens' fantasies are already well-served by a huge mega-genre of literature, writing, and film. It already causes social issues when real men can't live up to Mr. Darcy and Christian Grey. That's part of the deal of freedom though, so whatever.

As for charity - I'm making a point, but generally it's true. We live in a world where women get 60% of the education, but 90%+ of sex-specific scholarships are... for women! Think about that.

There are so, so many examples of this when you actually look at it and read some things by people who have collected the data. It's staggering.

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#190

Post by jlawson »

libraryatnight wrote: post #149
matheusmoreira wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you being downvoted? You're right.

Most of what he says is not real. "Men's sexuality is dangerous and unnecessary" - who is saying this? I understand powerful men abusing people is a hot topic right now, but male sexuality doesn't feel under attack to me. If you think of abuse and manipulation as male sexuality, I suppose I could see it. "The other side of it is that nobody cares about mens' problems" People do care. You can talk to them and share if…

"Men's sexuality is dangerous and unnecessary" - It's not something that's said. It's the assumption underlying every interaction that never gets articulated and is more powerful for that reason. It's so "obvious" and universally accepted that it doesn't need to be said.

Men can be creepy; it is impossible for a woman to be creepy. Male teachers who sleep with with students are "pedophiles" and "rapists"; female teachers who do this "had sex" with students.

Post reply on HN