Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhn_mk1 | Hacker News Reader

Regarding tha avatars manned by strangers to help people feel good, they fall into a strange area where I don't know what to think about them. On one hand, it's clearly a fake relationship if the other half of it is in it for the money. I would not want that upon myself, as I view it as somewhat meaningless. On the other, it seems to have a positive effect on one's happiness, and hiring caretakers seems to operate on the same principle.

Is there a conflict of interest, where paying for someone's attention would incentivize that someone to become a disproportionate part of the other person's life?

If there's a difference between "real" and "fake" relationship, then that difference reminds me of filling a need (of stimulation?) using drugs: the drug makes the need go away, without the taker being stimulated in any useful way, "Brave New World" style.

View on HN

Let me answer your question with an anecdote.

When my grandfather was approaching the grave and had to battle several serious medical issues, he hired a live-in nurse to help him with everything from cooking dinner to helping him on and off the toilet (she was a large Samoan lady). She took care of him full-time (not on a live-in basis, though) for a couple years, occasionally having someone from her family fill in if she needed to take care of something. The whole family got to know her quite well, and in a way she became a part of the family, performing the duties that the rest of us, for whatever reason, could not.

Would she have been there had she not been getting paid? No, but part of that has to do with the fact that had we not been paying her, she wouldn't even be able to afford a place to live or be able to fuel her car to come over every day.

Similarly, if insurance companies weren't paying the company that creates these avatars, which in turn pays the people who operate the avatars, these relationships would never have an opportunity to form in the first place.

As for my grandfather's nurse, she attended my grandfather's funeral with the rest of the family. Even brought her young granddaughter along with her. She wasn't being paid that day.

In other words, I think you're worrying too much.

1. She was taking care of him as herself not as an avatar.

2. Because she was herself no one could replace her. If she is a shape with eyes. Then the next week someone else could take over. This makes the relationship way faker.

Very much #2!

As far as I can tell care.coach does not give you a caretaker. There's a reason it's an avatar and not a person. It takes your input and assigns it to someone who writes up with a response. That person may or may not be the same person who responded the last time.

It's not a relationship. It's an illusion of a relationship. That's really scary to me.

As you say, this exists with real humans too. Not just caretakers, but psychologists, talk therapy.

Seems like a similar thing, except that instead of the product being hand-crafted one-on-one by someone with a PhD, now it's mass-produced elsewhere by the mechanical turk.

Also spouses and grandchildren, in many many cases.

> On one hand, it's clearly a fake relationship if the other half of it is in it for the money.

These 'fake' relationships aren't new. Therapy, counseling, coaching, tutors etc. They _can_ be incredibly rewarding and fulfilling.

I sort of feel this way regarding my therapist relationship, he is my "friend" for money. I pay for his time to listen and talk with me.

I think the word is "parasocial", although that usually implies one-way. There's a big rise in "not quite one way" relationships with streamers, youtubers, camgirls etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com