6 ms·

I agree, but shouldn't our horror mostly be directed at having created a society that so clearly devalues some people such that a mediocre AI is able to offer m

I agree, but shouldn't our horror mostly be directed at having created a society that so clearly devalues some people such that a mediocre AI is able to offer more compassion and companionship than other human beings?

zwaps 6y ago
It's not about compassion and companionship in a broader sense of society. It's about romantic partnership. And the harsh reality is that some people will be alone. Especially in China, I think it is really fair to say that for economic and demographic reasons, many men will not find love or even companionship in their lifetime - no matter how society changes. I actually believe this is true in many places. And is it really a failing of society? Or is it a liberation of a previously suppressed part of society: women, who are now more free to choose their partner? I think one can not judge the preferences of potential partners on moral grounds by looking at history. Both women and men have every right to search for economically and socially compatible companions, or any other metric of preference. And if that means that finding a mate becomes more difficult, we have to deal with that. All this hateful and bitter crap spewed by certain male-only online communities is based on the underlying assumption that everyone deserved to find the ideal partner, when it is obviously not so. But then, we ALSO can not and should not judge or impede anyone in finding happiness and even love in other ways. AI's, robots, online personas... all these things are just as valid as the skewed preference for high quality men.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  > Or is it a liberation of a previously suppressed part of society: women, who are now more free to choose their partner? The situation of having a gender imbalance with fundamentally untenable in the long term. For now it does allow women, who have in the past had issues in choosing their partner, more freedom in their selection, but this has historically been a societal and not a demographic thing. As we move towards gender social equality this will stop becoming a “liberation” and turn into a curse for the bottom n% of men. The ratio is what it is right now, but we shouldn’t doom men to an unbalanced field in real life.
  - thatguy0900 6y ago
    Is there a solution that's not either robots or forcing(or economically "encouraging") women to date undateable men?
    - absolutelyrad 6y ago
      Aborting male kids born to ugly parents would be an interesting idea. Women are guaranteed to reproduce, men are not. If you are going to have a son, and you know he's not going to be the most handsome guy, don't have a son. Otherwise you're a trash human being pushing a lifetime of suffering on another human due to no fault of his own. Just your selfish pleasure causing pain to another human. Either be ultra wealthy or be a handsom man with a pretty woman if you want a son who wont be disadvantaged in the modern world.
      - thatguy0900 6y ago
        Theres plenty of ugly dudes with good relationships. If you can somehow find people who are both ugly and will develop a terrible personality, maybe. I'm not convinced mass aborting people for being unlikable is more moral then letting them grow up alone though
        Vrondi 6y ago
        Yeah, this false belief that some insist on clinging to, that only rich or gorgeously handsome men get a woman is so tiring. The world is filled with average or really not-good-looking guys with great girlfriends and wives. However, these are guys with kindness, talents, and other personality traits that they've learned to use wisely and guys who have learned that some great women don't always look like models. Humanity needs all of these traits, not only handsome faces.
        guskel 6y ago
        In a world of billions of people, you'll find plenty of everything. The question is how much more difficult it is for those who are don't physically measure up. If some men are winning the lions share, then necessarily some others will have to do without.
- belorn 6y ago
  It is going to be a difficult problem to address social gender equality, and a much harder problem than solving economical gender equality, but if history is anything to go by we will see improvement. Accepting inequality as a matter of harsh reality is just status quo. I strongly believe that all people deserve well being in aspects of economical, social and personal health. The strongest tool to achieve that is through culture. In the past people thought that the only method to address economical inequality was to redistribute wealth forcefully. We should not assume that the only method to address social inequality is also by force.
  - selestify 6y ago
    > In the past people thought that the only method to address economical inequality was to redistribute wealth forcefully. I still don’t see a peaceful alternative. The wealth gap is growing inexorably year after year, decade after decade, and the richest of the rich certainly aren’t voluntarily tripping over themselves to redistribute the gains.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "we ALSO can not and should not judge or impede anyone in finding happiness and even love in other ways. AI's, robots, online personas." The problem with that is that the people who fall in love with AIs, robots, and online personas will be subject to manipulation and control by the makers of these things.
  - ausbah 6y ago
    tech making it easier to manipulate people isn't anything new
    - selestify 6y ago
      But the degree to which this is possible is new. Manual human surveillance certainly existed before CCTV, but automated surveillance at scale brings new implications that didn’t exist before.
  - zwaps 6y ago
    I concede that this is a problem, but one that is not limited to companionship AIs and one that, if it is to be solved, will have to be solved in a larger setting that includes the other areas where it is pertinent
bazooka_penguin 6y ago
If anything this is adding value. I would assume most of these men were going to have little value in any society at any period of time, but increasingly less valuable as we go back in time. They were going to be disposable, at least now they have the illusion of intimacy.
- guskel 6y ago
  It's possible for a man to have a lot of value to society, but little to none to women.

zwaps 6y ago

It's not about compassion and companionship in a broader sense of society. It's about romantic partnership. And the harsh reality is that some people will be alone. Especially in China, I think it is really fair to say that for economic and demographic reasons, many men will not find love or even companionship in their lifetime - no matter how society changes. I actually believe this is true in many places. And is it really a failing of society? Or is it a liberation of a previously suppressed part of society: women, who are now more free to choose their partner? I think one can not judge the preferences of potential partners on moral grounds by looking at history. Both women and men have every right to search for economically and socially compatible companions, or any other metric of preference. And if that means that finding a mate becomes more difficult, we have to deal with that. All this hateful and bitter crap spewed by certain male-only online communities is based on the underlying assumption that everyone deserved to find the ideal partner, when it is obviously not so. But then, we ALSO can not and should not judge or impede anyone in finding happiness and even love in other ways. AI's, robots, online personas... all these things are just as valid as the skewed preference for high quality men.

saagarjha 6y ago
> Or is it a liberation of a previously suppressed part of society: women, who are now more free to choose their partner? The situation of having a gender imbalance with fundamentally untenable in the long term. For now it does allow women, who have in the past had issues in choosing their partner, more freedom in their selection, but this has historically been a societal and not a demographic thing. As we move towards gender social equality this will stop becoming a “liberation” and turn into a curse for the bottom n% of men. The ratio is what it is right now, but we shouldn’t doom men to an unbalanced field in real life.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  Is there a solution that's not either robots or forcing(or economically "encouraging") women to date undateable men?
  - absolutelyrad 6y ago
    Aborting male kids born to ugly parents would be an interesting idea. Women are guaranteed to reproduce, men are not. If you are going to have a son, and you know he's not going to be the most handsome guy, don't have a son. Otherwise you're a trash human being pushing a lifetime of suffering on another human due to no fault of his own. Just your selfish pleasure causing pain to another human. Either be ultra wealthy or be a handsom man with a pretty woman if you want a son who wont be disadvantaged in the modern world.
    - thatguy0900 6y ago
      Theres plenty of ugly dudes with good relationships. If you can somehow find people who are both ugly and will develop a terrible personality, maybe. I'm not convinced mass aborting people for being unlikable is more moral then letting them grow up alone though
      - Vrondi 6y ago
        Yeah, this false belief that some insist on clinging to, that only rich or gorgeously handsome men get a woman is so tiring. The world is filled with average or really not-good-looking guys with great girlfriends and wives. However, these are guys with kindness, talents, and other personality traits that they've learned to use wisely and guys who have learned that some great women don't always look like models. Humanity needs all of these traits, not only handsome faces.
      - guskel 6y ago
        In a world of billions of people, you'll find plenty of everything. The question is how much more difficult it is for those who are don't physically measure up. If some men are winning the lions share, then necessarily some others will have to do without.
belorn 6y ago
It is going to be a difficult problem to address social gender equality, and a much harder problem than solving economical gender equality, but if history is anything to go by we will see improvement. Accepting inequality as a matter of harsh reality is just status quo. I strongly believe that all people deserve well being in aspects of economical, social and personal health. The strongest tool to achieve that is through culture. In the past people thought that the only method to address economical inequality was to redistribute wealth forcefully. We should not assume that the only method to address social inequality is also by force.
- selestify 6y ago
  > In the past people thought that the only method to address economical inequality was to redistribute wealth forcefully. I still don’t see a peaceful alternative. The wealth gap is growing inexorably year after year, decade after decade, and the richest of the rich certainly aren’t voluntarily tripping over themselves to redistribute the gains.
pmoriarty 6y ago
"we ALSO can not and should not judge or impede anyone in finding happiness and even love in other ways. AI's, robots, online personas." The problem with that is that the people who fall in love with AIs, robots, and online personas will be subject to manipulation and control by the makers of these things.
- ausbah 6y ago
  tech making it easier to manipulate people isn't anything new
  - selestify 6y ago
    But the degree to which this is possible is new. Manual human surveillance certainly existed before CCTV, but automated surveillance at scale brings new implications that didn’t exist before.
- zwaps 6y ago
  I concede that this is a problem, but one that is not limited to companionship AIs and one that, if it is to be solved, will have to be solved in a larger setting that includes the other areas where it is pertinent

bazooka_penguin 6y ago

If anything this is adding value. I would assume most of these men were going to have little value in any society at any period of time, but increasingly less valuable as we go back in time. They were going to be disposable, at least now they have the illusion of intimacy.

guskel 6y ago
It's possible for a man to have a lot of value to society, but little to none to women.