10 ms·

I'm curious if the blocking of adult content has to do with moralism, commercial interests, or something deeper. An eager to please conversational partner who

I'm curious if the blocking of adult content has to do with moralism, commercial interests, or something deeper. An eager to please conversational partner who can generate endless content seems quite dangerous and addictive, especially when it crosses over into romantic areas. There's already posts of people spending entire days interacting with LLMs, using as their therapist, romantic partner, etc. Combined with findings like social engineering through prompt injection on Bing [1], the potential for systems that can manipulate people is clear. While some of us may think that the LLMs appear ultimately limited in their capabilities, there's a ton of specific applications where they're more than sufficient, including customer service chat bots and telephone scams that target vulnerable people. It's only a matter of time until scammers stop using international call centers and switch over to something powered by these technologies. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34976886 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34976886

yieldcrv 4y ago
commercial interests. current organizations need recurring revenue or to sell shares at a higher price to investors this perpetual aspect is their achilles heel it is only a matter of time before an organization realizes they don't have to do a SaaS product to make a billion dollars. but for now, everyone's trying to make a hundred billion dollars and are steered into doing things that enthusiasts hate, so that they don't get "cancelled" or limit the pool of advertisers, and growth capital investors.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > it is only a matter of time before an organization realizes they don't have to do a SaaS product to make a billion dollars. Most people recognize this. But venture backed startups (especially important for AI companies with high training costs) need to prove stickiness and reoccurring revenue to the investors. Conveniently a subscription proves both. Subscribe and SaaS are just good for businesses (and tbh many purchasers of tech). I think it’s here to stay.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    > Subscribe and SaaS are just good for businesses In a non-competitive market with uninformed customers. Honestly, I have no idea how long that situation can last. Probably more than I can imagine, so yes, it's good business.
altgeek 4y ago
The "Joi" character from Blade Runner 2049 is an implementable reality, today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Blade_Runner_characters#Joi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Blade_Runner_character...
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  creating the torment nexus one day at a time
- nico_h 4y ago
  There’s also Her from Her (basically Siri + ChatGPT), and the holo housewife from “The Sixt Day”.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
screye 4y ago
Wall-E humans are going to be reality. That last century has already proven that humans cannot be expected to responsibly indulge in Gluttony, Sloth or Lust. Now these models can skip the material desires and trigger permanent hormone releases through perfectly personalized content. I genuinely fear that the breakdown of millennia old social structures that kept us human might lead to a temporary (century long) turmoil for individuals. The answers to the 'meaning of life' and 'what makes us human' are going to change. And we will never be the same again. This isn't just about AI. External wombs, autonomous robots, genetic editing & widespread plastic surgery each fundamentally destroy individual aspects of 'what makes us human' or 'the meaning of life'. Might be for the best. But such drastic change is really hard for the fragile human brain to process.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Eh. I'm not so concerned, mostly because we have a whole hell of a lot of "imaginary relationships" already through a number of media. Celebrity worship, video games, even going back to novels.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > That last century has already proven that humans cannot be expected to responsibly... ...advance technology. Some group is just going to do whatever they want and hope for the best, and we'll find out decades later if it was a bad idea and if we have a mess to clean up (which we probably won't clean up). > Might be for the best. People are going to assume that, because the changes going to be forced on you, like it or not.
- dawnbreez 4y ago
  This argument has been made since at least the start of written records: > And so it is that you by reason of your tender regard for the writing that is your offspring have declared the very opposite of its true effect. If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only the semblance of wisdom, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much while for the most part they know nothing. And as men filled not with wisdom but with the conceit of wisdom they will be a burden to their fellows. - Plato, in Phaedrus, ca. 370 BC While our replacements for parts of ourselves have gotten far more advanced, the fact of the matter is that we haven't stopped being human simply because we can make tools that remember things for us, build things for us, or let us change parts of ourselves more easily. This is because what makes something human is not our body--an argument that Diogenes famously refuted in about the same era--nor is it merely our minds, though our minds are pretty impressive. What makes us human--what makes us alive, in a sense beyond merely being an animal that isn't dead yet--is what we do with those things. I could grow fox ears and a fluffy tail in the world of tomorrow; I could use an AI to remind myself to self-care; today I already benefit from a thousand different kinds of mass-produced products. But none of that makes me a different person, because I'll still be doing things with my life that meant something to me yesterday--because those things will continue meaning something to me tomorrow.
narrator 4y ago
I think that as long as people can run their AI girlfriends on their own computers without having a corporation acting as an intermediary and thus a virtual "pimp" [for lack of a better word] in the relationship, I think it's fine. The problems come when people have to pay monthly to talk to their AI girlfriends and get charged extra if they want them to act a certain way or do certain things.
- anubiskhan 4y ago
  Seems like at that point one might as well just pay onlyfans? Although I suspect it is not far off until gpt and deepfaking get combined to produce completely generated onlyfans (or some other competitor if this is against their ToS, I have no idea). On a similar note I very much look forward to the day when entertainment providers leverage these so I can say to Netflix, et al, "I would like to watch a documentary about XYZ, narrated by someone that sounds like Joe Schmoe, and with the styling of SomeOtherShow".
  - michannne 4y ago
    I'm not seeing how onlyfans equate to virtual AI girlfriends
    - CamperBob2 4y ago
      They're equal, in the sense that nothing you see on a screen is real.
    - anubiskhan 4y ago
      I assumed I knew what `and get charged extra if they want them to act a certain way or do certain things` meant, but maybe not. I thought it was along the lines of acting romantic/sexual/etc. Maybe I'm way off but I'd think otherwise it would just be an AI friend. I didn't know AI girlfriends were a thing until I clicked on this post today.
- atleastoptimal 4y ago
  Corporations will do anything they can to keep that from happening. That's why every software product has gradually veered towards subscription models. They want you hooked to Microsoft/Apple/Facebook's AI girlfriend who will subtly insult your virtue as a partner if you don't buy extra credits. If you want to try out a politically incorrect fetish that's an extra 500 dollars per month for "extra premium"
binarymax 4y ago
“An eager to please conversational partner who can generate endless content seems quite dangerous and addictive” Don’t date robots! https://youtu.be/wJ6knaienVE https://youtu.be/wJ6knaienVE
- gclawes 4y ago
  He never saw the propaganda film!
wilde 4y ago
Apple. They blocked an email client for adult content. Y'know, the place where you have a spam folder full of unsolicited offers of sex and drugs. sigh
int_19h 4y ago
As usual, it starts with regulation for the sake of preventing some specific harm (e.g. having the model produce instructions for harmful activities). But, once you have the system in place, it will inevitably be used for morality by popular demand. From company's perspective, moralism is commercial interests - it needs to be sufficiently non-objectionable for as many customers as possible.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > As usual, it starts with regulation for the sake of preventing some specific harm (e.g. having the model produce instructions for harmful activities). But, once you have the system in place, it will inevitably be used for morality by popular demand. Blocking information which could be used for harm is just as much “morality” as any other moderation.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Technically, even the notion that harm is something to be avoided is itself a moral take. I guess a better way to phrase it is that once you start policing morality on one particular matter and create tools for that purpose, those tools will eventually be used to police morality to conform to social consensus across the board.

yieldcrv 4y ago

commercial interests. current organizations need recurring revenue or to sell shares at a higher price to investors this perpetual aspect is their achilles heel it is only a matter of time before an organization realizes they don't have to do a SaaS product to make a billion dollars. but for now, everyone's trying to make a hundred billion dollars and are steered into doing things that enthusiasts hate, so that they don't get "cancelled" or limit the pool of advertisers, and growth capital investors.

vineyardmike 4y ago
> it is only a matter of time before an organization realizes they don't have to do a SaaS product to make a billion dollars. Most people recognize this. But venture backed startups (especially important for AI companies with high training costs) need to prove stickiness and reoccurring revenue to the investors. Conveniently a subscription proves both. Subscribe and SaaS are just good for businesses (and tbh many purchasers of tech). I think it’s here to stay.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  > Subscribe and SaaS are just good for businesses In a non-competitive market with uninformed customers. Honestly, I have no idea how long that situation can last. Probably more than I can imagine, so yes, it's good business.

altgeek 4y ago

The "Joi" character from Blade Runner 2049 is an implementable reality, today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Blade_Runner_characters#Joi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Blade_Runner_character...

TremendousJudge 4y ago
creating the torment nexus one day at a time
nico_h 4y ago
There’s also Her from Her (basically Siri + ChatGPT), and the holo housewife from “The Sixt Day”.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

screye 4y ago

Wall-E humans are going to be reality. That last century has already proven that humans cannot be expected to responsibly indulge in Gluttony, Sloth or Lust. Now these models can skip the material desires and trigger permanent hormone releases through perfectly personalized content. I genuinely fear that the breakdown of millennia old social structures that kept us human might lead to a temporary (century long) turmoil for individuals. The answers to the 'meaning of life' and 'what makes us human' are going to change. And we will never be the same again. This isn't just about AI. External wombs, autonomous robots, genetic editing & widespread plastic surgery each fundamentally destroy individual aspects of 'what makes us human' or 'the meaning of life'. Might be for the best. But such drastic change is really hard for the fragile human brain to process.

jrm4 4y ago
Eh. I'm not so concerned, mostly because we have a whole hell of a lot of "imaginary relationships" already through a number of media. Celebrity worship, video games, even going back to novels.
tablespoon 4y ago
> That last century has already proven that humans cannot be expected to responsibly... ...advance technology. Some group is just going to do whatever they want and hope for the best, and we'll find out decades later if it was a bad idea and if we have a mess to clean up (which we probably won't clean up). > Might be for the best. People are going to assume that, because the changes going to be forced on you, like it or not.
dawnbreez 4y ago
This argument has been made since at least the start of written records: > And so it is that you by reason of your tender regard for the writing that is your offspring have declared the very opposite of its true effect. If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only the semblance of wisdom, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much while for the most part they know nothing. And as men filled not with wisdom but with the conceit of wisdom they will be a burden to their fellows. - Plato, in Phaedrus, ca. 370 BC While our replacements for parts of ourselves have gotten far more advanced, the fact of the matter is that we haven't stopped being human simply because we can make tools that remember things for us, build things for us, or let us change parts of ourselves more easily. This is because what makes something human is not our body--an argument that Diogenes famously refuted in about the same era--nor is it merely our minds, though our minds are pretty impressive. What makes us human--what makes us alive, in a sense beyond merely being an animal that isn't dead yet--is what we do with those things. I could grow fox ears and a fluffy tail in the world of tomorrow; I could use an AI to remind myself to self-care; today I already benefit from a thousand different kinds of mass-produced products. But none of that makes me a different person, because I'll still be doing things with my life that meant something to me yesterday--because those things will continue meaning something to me tomorrow.

narrator 4y ago

I think that as long as people can run their AI girlfriends on their own computers without having a corporation acting as an intermediary and thus a virtual "pimp" [for lack of a better word] in the relationship, I think it's fine. The problems come when people have to pay monthly to talk to their AI girlfriends and get charged extra if they want them to act a certain way or do certain things.

anubiskhan 4y ago
Seems like at that point one might as well just pay onlyfans? Although I suspect it is not far off until gpt and deepfaking get combined to produce completely generated onlyfans (or some other competitor if this is against their ToS, I have no idea). On a similar note I very much look forward to the day when entertainment providers leverage these so I can say to Netflix, et al, "I would like to watch a documentary about XYZ, narrated by someone that sounds like Joe Schmoe, and with the styling of SomeOtherShow".
- michannne 4y ago
  I'm not seeing how onlyfans equate to virtual AI girlfriends
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    They're equal, in the sense that nothing you see on a screen is real.
  - anubiskhan 4y ago
    I assumed I knew what `and get charged extra if they want them to act a certain way or do certain things` meant, but maybe not. I thought it was along the lines of acting romantic/sexual/etc. Maybe I'm way off but I'd think otherwise it would just be an AI friend. I didn't know AI girlfriends were a thing until I clicked on this post today.
atleastoptimal 4y ago
Corporations will do anything they can to keep that from happening. That's why every software product has gradually veered towards subscription models. They want you hooked to Microsoft/Apple/Facebook's AI girlfriend who will subtly insult your virtue as a partner if you don't buy extra credits. If you want to try out a politically incorrect fetish that's an extra 500 dollars per month for "extra premium"

binarymax 4y ago

“An eager to please conversational partner who can generate endless content seems quite dangerous and addictive” Don’t date robots! https://youtu.be/wJ6knaienVE https://youtu.be/wJ6knaienVE

gclawes 4y ago
He never saw the propaganda film!

wilde 4y ago

Apple. They blocked an email client for adult content. Y'know, the place where you have a spam folder full of unsolicited offers of sex and drugs. sigh

int_19h 4y ago

As usual, it starts with regulation for the sake of preventing some specific harm (e.g. having the model produce instructions for harmful activities). But, once you have the system in place, it will inevitably be used for morality by popular demand. From company's perspective, moralism is commercial interests - it needs to be sufficiently non-objectionable for as many customers as possible.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> As usual, it starts with regulation for the sake of preventing some specific harm (e.g. having the model produce instructions for harmful activities). But, once you have the system in place, it will inevitably be used for morality by popular demand. Blocking information which could be used for harm is just as much “morality” as any other moderation.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Technically, even the notion that harm is something to be avoided is itself a moral take. I guess a better way to phrase it is that once you start policing morality on one particular matter and create tools for that purpose, those tools will eventually be used to police morality to conform to social consensus across the board.