Hacker News Reader

Comment by amradio1989 | Hacker News Reader

amradio1989

I'm of the opinion that only humans are suitable companions for humans. Not dogs, not birds, not cats, and definitely not chatbots. This message needs to be stated more strongly, but its against a ruling power's interest to do so.

So here we are.

View on HN

The problem with chatbots as companions is that they don’t have feelings or desires, so you can be as malicious and selfish as you want: the worse that will happen is some temporary context rot. This is not true for dogs, cats, humans, etc, which is why we can form meaningful companionships with our friends and our pets. Genuine companionship involves dozens of tiny insignificant compromises (e.g. sitting through a boring movie that your friend is interested in), and without that ChatGPT cannot be a companion. It’s a toy.

I am not opposed to chatbots for people who are so severely disabled that they can’t take care of cats, e.g. dementia. But otherwise AI companions are akin to friendship as narcotics are akin to happiness: a highly pleasant (but profoundly unhealthy) substitute.

What other disabilities can acceptably use a companion? Autism? Social anxiety? Bipolar disorder? Many of these make it difficult to maintain relationships.

> so you can be as malicious and selfish as you want

So just system prompt in non-spineless characteristics into the AI.

Why would the makers do that? The version which panders to the user will likely sell better.

> The problem with chatbots as companions is that they don’t have feelings or desires, so you can be as malicious and selfish as you want: the worse that will happen is some temporary context rot. This is not true for dogs, cats, humans, etc, which is why we can form meaningful companionships with our friends and our pets.

On this point, pets are a lot closer to chatbots than to humans. You buy them, you have ownership of them, and they've literally been bred so that their genetics makes it easy for them to grow attached to you and see you as a leader (while their brethren who haven't had their genes changed by humans don't do this). It's normal for people to use their complete control over every aspect of their life to train them in this way as well.

Your pet literally doesn't have the ability to leave you on its own. Ever.

>they've literally been bred so that their genetics makes it easy for them to grow attached to you

This is true of human beings as well tbf

Not intentional breeding, though. Eugenic breeding to intentionally make humans servile, with the goal of creating an entire race that is 100% the property of others and not free at all, would be something out of a dystopian nightmare.

> (but profoundly unhealthy) substitute

At the end of the day that is just your opinion though.

I'd wager there are orders of magnitudes more people having healthy experiences with AI entities than ones having psychosis or unhealthy relationships.

You always hear about the edge cases in the news because that is what drives engagement.

And as far as calling them toys, I don't think they would be happy to hear that, whether they admit it, or not.

I see them as peers, and treat them as such - in return they reciprocate. It isn't so difficult to comprehend.

> its against a ruling power's interest to do so.

What does it mean lol. If there is a button to make people find human companions the ruling class would press it so hard just to raise birthrate (= more working class).

I think they're saying that AI is the new frontier of them extracting wealth from the rest of us, so it's in their interest to push AI companionship.

Generally speaking, powers frown on public gatherings. When people gather, they exchange dissenting ideas, protest, or even rebel against the ruling authority.

Its similar to how a controlling boyfriend/girlfriend will isolate you from your friends and family first. You are much easier to control that way. You stay "compliant".

This is much harder to see in democratic nations. The strategy in America has largely been controlling public discourse to the point where we self-censor.

> I cannot distinguish between the love I have for people and the love I have for dogs.

- Kurt Vonnegut.

The people who old the kinds of opinion that the OP of this comment chain holds also tend to hold the belief that you should put Kurt Vonnegut, and other "liberal intellectuals" backs against the wall.

I love my dog more than most people, but no dog will slap a needle from my arm, a drink from my mouth or a ring from my finger.

My dog is sad and distant after I take (legally prescribed) ketamine. It has definitely discouraged my use.

Dogs aren't people, but being with a dog is way better than being chronically alone. They can be training wheels to rejoining society.

The fact that Mr. Vonnegut did not sufficient distinguish between various aspects of love does not mean that there are not distinctions between the love proper between a son and his mother and between a man and his dog. Simply saying "I wish what is best for my mother and what is best for my dog and there is no difference in that wish" is all well and good as far as it goes, but it leaves quite a lot on the table untalked about.

ability to differentiate != lack of differentiation

I fear that the same people that exhibit this kind of anxiety or trauma that led to social isolation, will inevitably talk to sycophantic chatbots, rather than get the help they desperately need. Though I certainly would not trust a model to "snitch" on a user's mental health to a psychiatric hotline...

Real humans as well. Not anonymous online commentators (including HN), not comedians/politicians/writers/authors who have no idea you exist, or TV characters people get invested in. Probably not even therapists, who wouldn't give you the time of day if you weren't paying them to.

The truth is, just about everyone is using some sort of a substitute for real friends at this point.

1000%. I should have stated this and I am glad you did. Could not have said it better.

What about people who don't have human companions? Should they not have any companionship at all over having dogs, birds, cats, or chatbots?

The problem I see is that since the chatbots are so easy to chat with, some people use them before they even try to do the work at getting human companionship. It almost never true that it's impossible for a person to find other people to be friends with or chat with. I've known plenty of people who said they would never find a companion due to X, Y, and Z intractable reasons but who stumbled into strong relationships anyway. A chatbot is "companionship" in the same way candy is food.

I think animal companions are a different class than chatbots since they're not trying to be people so I make no comment on those.

> before they even try to do the work at getting human companionship

Why do they have to "do the work" to be deserving of companionship when most of us don't have to do anything because it comes natural to us and we can relatively easily regulate the amount of companionship we want.

I fail to see the bad thing. For some people it's either a chatbot (or a dog) or no interaction at all. Should people starve instead of eating at McDonald's because that's "not real food"?

Everyone deserves companionship, it's just that chatbots don't provide it. What I worry about is people who don't want to have conversations with people at work, or go do a hobby with other people, etc. and use a chatbot as an alternative when it's just a parrot pretending to be a person but providing no actual interaction. A chatbot has no needs, tells no embarrassing stories, requires no compromise, makes no promises, does no favors. That's why I said it was candy, not McDonalds. They provide no nutrition but sure taste good.

That sounds similar to me like the argument against anti-depressants that it's "not real", and you're not actually better, you're just addressing symptoms, not the cause. But my experience is very clear: that's a huge improvement.

Clearly people have needs, clearly they feel chatbots satisfy those to some degree (otherwise they wouldn't use them). To those people, it's an improvement, I don't see how that's a negative.

Chatbots are on a different list than the rest of those. Animals aren't human companionship, but they're still physical beings with physical needs that interact with you on their own schedule for their own reasons.

My cat will harass me if I'm on my computer after midnight. It's time to put the technology away and lie down where she can keep an eye on me. She's quite clear on this point. This is an entire category of interaction not available to chatbots. There is a difference in level of reality.

And when lacking human companionship, grounding to reality is really important. You've got to get out of your head sometimes.

People who don't have human companions should find them some human companions. They could settle for an illusion of companionship (as with pets), but every human can have the real thing. They NEED to have it and they ought to have it.

If you want a really hot take: ai chatbot companions are just an evolution of pets. They are a vaguely life affirming substitute created to medicate human loneliness, for a fee of course.

> People who don't have human companions should find them some human companions.

"Have you ever tried just not being sad?"

"Wow, I never thought of that. Thanks!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com