Inevitable successor to this: a TikTok-style adaptive porn feed that learns exactly what you like and starts generating porn customized to your kinks and preferences.
Remember the film "Brainstorm" from the 1980's? Where the guy almost dies because he blasts a real-life full brain capture of sex into his own brain in a loop for days?
We'll probably learn if there is a thing as too much dopamine.
No, I had to go look for it and it was on youtube (NSFW) but is this the scene [0] you're talking about? This was likely what inspired the braindance features in Cyberpunk 2077, it's pretty much the 1980s iteration (with a massive tape) on what looks like a futuristic VHS cassette and a phone for some reason.
Well, it wasn't exactly just dopamine, but there was woman who pleased herself to severe level [1] with 30 min orgasms that impacted her entire life, it's a become a meme on JRE [2].
Sidenote: this is probably the only film where Chris Walken wasn't like he is portrayed now, even Kings of NY had that vibe about him but here he is kind of... normal?
0: https://youtu.be/cOGAEAJ4xJE?t=2969
1: https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/brain-pain-cen...
Eventually we'll be watching generated personalities on twitch playing video games, and then we'll know the end is nigh. There is no infinity, eventually the snake chokes on its own tail...
that won't happen because the entire value proposition is in the personal connection to the streamer. (the modern derogatory term is 'parasocial relationship').
just like nobody watches chess computers or starcraft bots play nobody is going to watch bots play games. in fact to stay on the topic of the thread, people are making millions on onlyfans because they realized chatting with their viewers is much more valuable than generic pornography.
That "personal connection" is about as deep as the one I have to my favourite bartender. So I think the negative connotation of the term is quite justified.
I'm pretty sure, once we can add the ability to read and write external state to GPT3 and make the state personalized by user, we can emulate that as well :)
Right - that’s where the money is made. The people that pay them have to be found in the broader market, though, and that’s where this sort of thing would shine. A streamer could pump out a stupid amount of content with this, always fresh and new, with little or no ongoing time commitment. That in turn would free up their time to provide personalized content to paying customers.
I knew a guy who came across a post by an influencer at the cafe he worked at. She never came in. A different girl came in and had breakfast taking photos of the food and scenery.
It wasn’t a paid post. She just needed content so she outsourced it to someone who generated it for her.
The fact that it might occasionally do or say crazy things as it's not a real person might even be part of the draw. It's not like real people don't sometimes adopt controversial opinions purely for the attention it brings.
What's the legal precedent for for those images? Does it depend on the source set of data? If that's public domain, does that mean new images are owned by the producer (who is likely to be someone else entirely)? Is it more like someone that draws a likeness of someone else (I'm not sure the copyright of that either, but it's probably well defined by this point).
It would be a different matter, as you outlined above, if one created a digital facsimile of a person and used it to perform in ways that the original person did not. Does a person own their own persona?
If you can retain paying customers, and then pay performers for a supply of source material (which won't, unaltered, ever end up in customer hands) then there's a new business model somewhere in there.
Why the downvote? At 15 $/h his 162.7 billion could buy 1.24 million years worth of bathroom breaks. You want to argue other motivations are at play here?
If so, it existed for a while but shut down years ago.
Addiction mediated by chemicals that directly increase perceptions of incentive salience through mesolimbic dopaminergic activation are real addictions.
Perceptions of sensory stimuli come in through the normal paths do not directly hijack any part of the brain like addictive chemicals do. Downstream of the stimuli there may be reward learning but it's through normal channels, not directly turning up incentive salience. You actually have to like/enjoy something first before reward learning happens.
The crackpots and abusive groups out there holding "porn addiction" and related treatment camps and services are just about as legit as the "pray the gay away" camps. They're completely unethical and unsupported but moral panic keeps them flush with cash.
'cos I'm just thinking that Skinner boxes look pretty damn addictive from the outside, regardless of the precise mecahnism of action.
Additionally, scientists have studied if it is possible to become "addicted" to sex and other normal sexual stimuli. It doesn't happen. At least not like with, say, methamphetamine. Imagine how many people would be "addicted" to sex if it were. ref: https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2006/11/2/article-p222....
The real dangers here are cults like "no fap" (ie, NCOSE, FightTheNewDrug, Reboot) and other unhealthy moral panic groups promising to kill each other and repeated threatening to kill adult actors, media producers, and scientific researchers.
People with the strongest opposition to scientific consensus have the lowest levels of objective knowledge--yet they also have the most confidence. If someone claims to "treat" sex addiction or porn addiction, they are part of the problem providing "non-evidence-based treatment". ref: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027273582...
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01884-8 "Claiming Public Health Crisis to Regulate Sexual Outlets: A Critique of the State of Utah’s Declaration on Pornography"
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2019... "Should Public Health Professionals Consider Pornography a Public Health Crisis?"
There's a good chance there's just a selection bias for the type of person that joins a nofap cult (religious or otherwise) being intrinsically violent (unhealthy to others). Now they just have a cult to encourage them and tell them which researchers to send the death threats to.
That said, this battle was lost long long ago, so it’s somewhat of a moot point.
like, i watch a shitton of peers have problems with this and then y'all tell me "oh at least it's not opioids". bruh. yes it's not opioids it's a different kind of problem. then there's the people who are out here like "oh you're just a puritan" refusing to admit that there's literally anything potentially dangerous about porn at all.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that we shouldn't conflate the two via language, because as you also admit, they're not even in the same planet with regards to their danger and effect on the human organism. They don't operate the same way at all. I said nothing and passed no judgement on the dangers or lack thereof of porn.
You certainly did.
> and then I explained the scientific reasoning behind it.
That's charitable.
> there's every reason to believe that substance mediated addition is a very different thing than non-substance mediated "addiction".
And? They are both addictions.
edit: @stickfigure i'm can y'all please quit trying to tar me with this brush, it's bullshit. i'm not arguing about masturbation i'm saying excessive consumption of porn when people have limitless access to weird ass shit that doesn't reflect the real world is causing problems. don't try to make me some puritan or whatever because literally nothing i said suggests that.