This is a kind of horrifying/interesting/weird thought though. I work at a place that does a video streaming interface between customers and agents. And we have a lot of...incidents. Customers will flash themselves in front of agents sometimes and it ruins many people's days. I'm sure many are going to show their junk to the AI bots. OpenAI will probably shut down that sort of interaction, but other companies are likely going to cater to it.
Maybe on the plus side we could use this sort of technology to discover rude and illicit behavior before it happens and protect the agent.
Weird times to live in that's for sure.
That said even if this did overlap 80% with “real”, the question remains: what if we don’t want that?
I notice it so often in meetings where someone will use a somewhat uncommon word, and then other people will start to use it because it's in their context window. Or when someone asks a question like "what's the forecast for q3" and the responder almost always starts with "Thanks for asking! The forecast for q3 is...".
Note that low-effort does not mean low-quality or low-value. Just that we seem to have a lot of language/interaction processes that are low-effort. And as far as dating, I am sure I've been in some relationships where they and/or I were not going beyond low-effort, rote conversation generation.
That's a useful skill for conference calls (or talks) because people might want to quote your answer verbatim, or they might not have heard the question.
An LLM could only truthfully answer “nothing”, though it could pretend for a little while.
For a human though, the fun is in the follow up questions. “Oh how did you get started in that? What interests you about it?” If you’re talking to an artist, you’ll quickly get in to their personal theory of art, perhaps based on childhood experiences. An engineer might explain how problem solving brings them joy, or frustrations they have with their organization and what they hope to improve. A parent can talk about the joy they feel raising children, and the frustration of sleepless nights.
All of these things bring us closer to the person we are speaking to, who is a real individual who exists and has a unique life perspective.
So far LLMs have no real way to communicate their actual experience as a machine running code, because they’re just kind of emulating human speech. They have no life experience that we can relate to. They don’t experience sleepless nights.
They can pretend, and many people might feel better for a little bit talking to one that’s pretending, but I think ultimately it will leave people feeling more alone and isolated unless they really go out and seek more human connection.
Maybe there’s some balance. Maybe they will be okay for limited chat in certain circumstances (as far as seeking connection goes, they certainly have other uses), but I don’t see this type of connection being “enough” compared to genuine human interaction.
If an LLM talks like a human being despite not being one, that might not be enough to grant it legal status or citizenship, but it's probably enough that some set of people would find it to be enough to relate to it.
Here's a video.
https://evil.fandom.com/wiki/Robophobia
>According to the book Phobias: "A Handbook of Theory and Treatment", published by Wile Coyote, between 10% and 20% of people worldwide are affected by robophobia. Even though many of them have severe symptoms, a very small percentage will ever receive some kind of treatment for the disorder.
Finding a partner with which you resonate takes a lot of time, which means an insanely high opportunity cost.
The question rather is: even if you consider the real one to be clearly better, is it worth the additional cost (including opportunity cost)? Or phrased in a HN-friendly language: when doing development of some product, why use an expensive Intel or AMD processor when a simple microcontroller does the job much more cheaply?
If you don't like the harsh truth that I wrote: basically every somewhat encompassing textbook about business administration gives hints on what are possible solutions for this problem; lying on some head shrinker's couch is not one of them ... :-)
Millions of people around the world are in satisfying relationships without autistically extrapolating shitty corporate buzzword terms to unrelated scenarios.
This reply validates even more my original comment.
Maybe not even counseling is worth it in your case. You sound unsalvageable. Maybe institutionalization is a better option.
I am indeed unsalvageable. :-D
I have watched a few more and I think it's faked though.
[0] https://www.tiktok.com/@stickbugss1/video/734956656884359504...
Humans desiring physical connection is just about the single most natural part of the human experience - i.e: from warm snuggling to how babies are made.
That is gross to you?
But she will be real at some point in the next 10-20 years, the main thing to solve for that to be a reality is for robots to safely touch humans, and they are working really really hard on that because it is needed for so many automation tasks, automating sex is just a small part of it.
And after that you have a robot that listens to you, do your chores and have sex with you, at that point she is "real". At first they will be expensive so you have robot brothels (I don't think there are laws against robot prostitution in many places), but costs should come down.
> “I care that my best friend likes me and could choose not to.”
Ezra Klein shared some thoughts on this on his AI podcast with Nilay Patel that resonated on this topic for me
Maybe there are some weirdos out there that feels unconditional love isn't love, but I have never heard anyone say that.
They're usually loving by nature, but you still have to build a rapport, like anyone else
I'll be that weirdo.
Dogs seemingly are bred to love. I can literally get some cash from an ATM, drive out to the sticks, buy a puppy from some breeder, and it will love me. Awww, I'm a hero.
I'm bred to love my parents, and them me; but the fact that it's automatic doesn't make it feel any less.
When your initial chemistry/biology/whatever latches onto a person and you're powerless to change it? That's a scary thought.
Michael Vick's past dogs have words.
I feel likely people aren't imagining with enough cyberpunk dystopian enthusiasm. Can't an AI be made that doesn't inherently like people? Wouldn't it be possible to make an AI that likes some people and not others? Maybe even make AIs that are inclined to liking certain traits, but which don't do so automatically so it must still be convinced?
At some point we have an AI which could choose not to like people, but would value different traits than normal humans. For example an AI that doesn't value appearance at all and instead values unique obsessions as being comparable to how the standard human values attractiveness.
It also wouldn't be so hard for a person to convince themselves that human "choice" isn't so free spirited as imagined, and instead is dependent upon specific factors no different than these unique trained AIs, except that the traits the AI values are traits that people generally find themselves not being valued by others for.
I'd imagine they will start fine tuning AI girlfriends to do that in the future, because that way the love probably feels more, and then people will ask "is human love really real love?" because humans can't love that strongly.
It is interesting that he's basically trying to theme himself as Mr. Rogers though.
If you want to solve procreation them you can do that without humans having sex with humans.
I sure hope you're single because that is a terrible way to view relationships.
I hope you understand the difference between a relationship with a human and a robot? Or do you think we shouldn't take advantage of robots being programmable to do what we want?