How about we don't ignore things that can help actual people and leave them worse off just because in theory there are also nicer sounding solutions.
I appreciate this approach in general, but it's worth remembering that proposed solutions can feel right without actually being right. Indeed, these proposals are often more dangerous than those that are obviously wrong since they effect undeserved complacency.
Implicitly you have assumed that AI companions could actually help the elderly stave off their loneliness, but is there any evidence that this assumption is true? Suppose, for example, that AI companions wouldn't actually help at all, but whatever company develops the software markets it as effective anyway. Some local government might read the advertisement and decide to buy a subscription to their software rather than budget for a community center. Ironically, the net effect would be to make the elderly even lonelier.
That doesn't mean there isn't a place for companion AIs, I just think it's horrible to consider them as anything other than a narcotic. They might work as a replacement for companionship in tragic situations where there are no other options, but there are 7 billion people on the planet. I don't see how it's impractical to encourage people to hang out with each other.
>I don't see how it's impractical to encourage people to hang out with each other.
You are now writing as if you just promoted communities while your original comment I replied to specifically started with 'How about we not do that'.
It's easier and more rewarding to just be more compassionate to others, and I don't think it's impossible to design social structures that at least make some attempt to serve everyone's emotional needs. Whether they'll be successful is circumstantial, and I don't think it's possible to make everyone perfectly content and with the perfect companions all the time, but we can encourage a culture of genuine curiosity and care for others that tries to move in that direction.
Giving is only draining to those who are still in an insecure and narcissistic phase of emotional development. It's extremely rewarding to give to others and help meet their needs and encourage growth, regardless of status difference.
I think focusing on inequality is an egregious mistake, and is a consequence of a perspective where comparison to others is paramount. Worth and contentment should not be viewed as related to the circumstances of others, it should be something each of us compares to our own prior circumstances.
If we are doing better than we were yesterday, that is immensely positive. And I believe that is possible for everyone. I believe everyone can find a friend out there that enriches them, and we can get the world to think and value compassion and social bonds just a tiny bit more than the day before.
If AI can supplement people when they’re in dire straights, and it works, then sure. But it won’t ever equalize the experience of everyone, because everyone is coming from a different place, and I don’t think it will ever substitute true human connection. The goal should be enrichment, and trying to increase positivity without taking from others. Social interaction is mutually beneficial when done correctly and can accomplish that.
The key and the challenge is to pair and train people in such a way that people are incrementally uplifted and not torn down. I think if AI has a place, it is best used to figure out optimal pairings that encourage that growth.