Regardless of the reason, would it be better to doom a person to never feel love, or to at least allow them to experience it through an AI? I'm no fan of the CCP or corporations, but in theory this could be a great tool
Either way, when the alternative is loneliness, depression, and eventually suicide, I find the AI solution to be way more humane.
If believing in a religion that isn't real can improve someone's life, why would love be any different?
BTW, love/affection/contact is one of those aspects of life where you're not a brain in a jar.
I think that's backwards. There's no reason to assume an experience like love can't be replicated by reproducing the same events in the brain. Unless you believe in the supernatural like souls, in which case the conversation is no longer based on scientific analysis.
> BTW, love/affection/contact is one of those aspects of life where you're not a brain in a jar.
This is a non sequitur. The point of the brain in a jar idea is that you have no way to tell that you're a brain in a jar if all the chemicals, electrical impulses, etc are properly manipulated.
> There's no reason to assume an experience like love can't be replicated
There's all the reason, if only because a "brain in a jar" lacks organs for hormone production (e.g., adrenaline and testosterone). And no, you even haven't got an idea of how create an artificial adrenal gland or scrotum, and how to hook them up to an brain in a jar. There's all the reason to assume it can't be easily replicated.
And even if it could theoretically be replicated, there's absolutely no reason to assume Xiaoice can do that.
There are a lot of people posting in this thread who seem to have fortunately never fallen in love with someone who doesn't feel the same way. There's no rule that says love has to be wholesome and balanced, sadly. Whatever process causes love inside us doesn't always work like that. Having run the gamut myself, I'd rather these men fall in love with an AI that at least talks to them and helps them, than some random girl in a café or online who simply shows them contempt.
If I'm burning my hand on a hot stove, I don't want pain killers to mask the pain.
> If I'm burning my hand on a hot stove, I don't want pain killers to mask the pain.
If someone else's hand is on a metaphorical hot stove, while I agree that it's acceptable to offer a third-party opinion, I also don't think it's acceptable to deny the person painkillers just because we think it's better to just get their hand off the stove. Sometimes you don't have the option of freeing your hand right away, and at least in the meantime (however long that lasts) some painkillers may be a lifesafer.
* I take your example metaphorically because active, serious self-harm is an exception to usual norms. One would likely jump to remove someone's hand from a hot stove without thinking, but even taking away an addict's cigarette or drink would generally be a faux pas. Having an AI that allows you to fall in love doesn't fall in the active self-destruction category, in my opinion.