361–370 of 400 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you considered running your own uncensored LLaMA2 instance via something like llama.cpp on a cloud for hire like, say, Azure? Some examples - there's probably a whole zoo of these: https://ollama.ai/blog/run-llama2-uncensored-locally https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/Luna-AI-Llama2-Uncensored-GG... https://ollama.ai/library/llama2-uncensored
Thank you for providing the link, I'll take a look.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's literally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias .
That's how evolution works (?)
The fact that humanity as a species has survived past social shocks does not mean it's a certain thing we'll survive future ones. Our ancestors had much longer to adjust their societies for new technology than we're getting these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it might be harm reduction to let lonely men have AI girlfriends. Sure, I wish reality was not a dystopia that constantly let me down, but all I can do is take anti-depressants, make money, keep voting, and hope things get better the longer I live. If the hypothesis that isolated men cause trouble is true, and if we don't have a long-term solution, at least this could be a stop-gap. Assuming it does not radical…
I see your point, but instead of giving up, i would rather we work on a proper long term solution. I am not against people using tools whichever way they see fit, but i am against the emerging trend of turning this stop gap solution into a permanent arrangement by exploiting these people’s emotional state. It is everyone’s sacred right to live life as they see fit but taking advantage of others is not. Therefore i th…
This is extremely hand-wavey. What long term solutions should we be working towards exactly?
Today, there are many people who statistically will never be able to have a romantic relationship. And regardless of whatever vague potential societal changes you're alluding to, there will always be a subset of the population that will be unable to find a partner.
> I am not against people using tools whichever way they see fit, but i am against the emerging trend of turning this stop gap solution into a permanent arrangement by exploiting these people’s emotional state.
As these services inevitably emerge, perhaps the focus should be on ensuring that companies do not exploit their users. The concept of regulating an industry is not novel. This should be possible unless you're asserting that a simulated relationship is fundamentally exploitative.
I can understand trying to suppress LLM usage that might teach people how to make poison, or inducing someone to commit suicide (although simply using Google is usually enough to find such content). But sexual content? How can that be harmful? It feels like this kind of censorship is simply the default in legal departments and it's not worth the risk to try to do something more in line with common sense.
It's a mix of that, and public perception/image. The banking system generally shies away from supporting sex-related anything, so it is an existential risk for any company to dabble in that space.
American society is also weirdly puritanical. Nobody wants the public outrage cannon of "your product is harmful to women" pointed at them.
You should not even try to create these sorts of technologies. Take a break from technology, spend time outdoors with plants and animals. These types of technologies will only lead to a worsening of this already sick society.
Contrary to what one would assume, I don't have this problem. However I do work in the IT field, and am surrounded by perpetually sad and lonely people who have never experienced romance. It's really really sad. And no, none of these people are the "angry hateful incel" type that the internet loves to dismiss and villainize.
If you aren't attractive, your chance of finding romance is low. This is just a cold and ugly fact of the human condition. There simply isn't "someone for everyone".
Why should we disallow lonely people from having something, even if it's simulated?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO this is industrialized automated abuse of lonely people and especially those with mental health issues. It's really truly gross. At least Joi in Bladerunner 2024 was a local model the user could apparently download onto their own portable device. She also never presented an upgrade dialog requiring payment.
> IMHO this is industrialized automated abuse of lonely people and especially those with mental health issues. It's really truly gross. Giving lonely people the thing they most desperately need - conversation and understanding - is abuse now? I'd say it's the opposite; the social policies that leave those people so desperately lonely are abusive, the industry that sells them a band-aid is inadequate but positive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As respectfully as I can say this -- and I realize I am close to crossing a line here and I want to be very, very careful not to cross it -- but I don't get how anyone is having a problem understanding: when I offhandedly mentioned to WalterBright that I disagree with his assessment of HN's slant, that was NOT in any way an invitation to have a protracted debate where everyone complains about what they personally thi…
Agreed. Sorry about it. Removed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your definition of perfect is an AI that is programmed not to upset you, then sure. But maybe there is perfection in the imperfection of humans and the pain that inevitably arises from human relationships? We learn how to love through our differences. Intimacy is deepened by meeting each other in the raw, vulnerable and wounded places. The kind of “perfect significant other” you’re describing sounds sterile and a…
Lex Friedman podcast with Elon where they discuss that war is an inevitability of the human condition. The idea of world peace may not be a worthwhile goal as what it is to be human is to have suffering, to some degree. As I navigate dating, I've found the perfectly "compliant" or even "subservient" relationships are just as shallow as the ones fueled by lust. Sadly, when relationships are as replaceable as water, th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author doesn't appear to even consider any kind of obligation to their users.
I'm sorry you feel that way. The primary intention of writing this article was to discuss it from the perspective of a 'failed product,' so I didn't mention my personal feelings. I am also aware of the potential harm it could cause to users, which is why I don't resent OpenAI's review process. I hope that during the period without review, it didn't cause any psychological harm to users.