3 ms·

> It’s not great that people are allowed to exploit other people’s needs for intimacy but it’s also not possible for society to really intervene > Selling AI g

> It’s not great that people are allowed to exploit other people’s needs for intimacy but it’s also not possible for society to really intervene > Selling AI girlfriends to lonely people at scale and simply to profit the board and shareholders is a different animal Its just that to me if you consider the AI unethical then the onlyfans model has to be unethical as well because I see it as very similar. The only difference is the scale and the fact its a human doing the faking. Supposing of course the Onlyfans model does not use AI. Now of course you can agree that both are unethical but consider that the AI with its scale does more harm or exceeds an acceptable threshold, and therefore deserves a ban. Maybe we define it as an exclusive prerogative of humans. I definitely agree that the company delivering the AI has way more levers to pull for scummy behavior than onlyfans. They can hold the Boyfriend hostage and forcing people to pay as much as they can bear. With onlyfans, the platform depends on the models to provide the service. If they take it to far, the models leave and they are left with nothing.

photonthug 3y ago
> if you consider the AI unethical then the onlyfans model has to be unethical as well because I see it as very similar. The only difference is the scale and the fact its a human doing the faking This difference seems important, indeed primary. To me, authenticity of the experience being sold is separate, secondary. (Tangent but lots of onlyfans customers are probably buying a feeling of power, and not a feeling of intimacy, so maybe they authentically get what they pay for anyway?) What I'm trying to say is that humans are going to exploit human needs/weaknesses in ways that are sometimes really gross. To a certain extent that is unavoidable, or rather trying to avoid it would involve society inserting itself between a lot of person-to-person interactions in a way that is probably a net harm. Even though this is true there is no reason to additionally allow corporations (or organizations of any kind really) to get deeply involved in the business of exploiting human needs/weaknesses. As an analogy, I'd say there's a major difference between tolerating gambling/confidence tricks from individual hustlers working the local park vs allowing the entire finance industry to scale up those same games. Both are exploiting people's desire to get rich quick, but scale, level of organization, and who profits matters. Maybe the hustler empties a few wallets to improve his own life, whereas finance as an industry can just about wreck the world. Also the hustler or the mark will eventually move on, or the hustler might feel bad, and at least in the process of exploitation there it's a somewhat fair fight in that it's 1v1. Meanwhile corporations are legion, are fiendishly patient, are intrinsically disinclined to feel bad about anything ever, etc. Difference seems clear to me
- almatabata 3y ago
  > As an analogy, I'd say there's a major difference between tolerating gambling/confidence tricks from individual hustlers working the local park vs allowing the entire finance industry to scale up those same games The thing is that both of these are still illegal on paper. Even if the police might turn a blind eye to some of it, in a court of law you would get convicted. In this specific example we are saying if you stay below a certain scale it is legal and intermediaries can profit. If you go above a certain scale it is illegal and banned. > Difference seems clear to me It is clear yes that one is more unethical than the other. As you say the difference between small crime and big crime. But both are still unethical to different degrees then. My worry do worry about unintended consequences. If you start banning companies on this basis, that you cannot sell fake intimacy, can you also sue individuals on the same basis or intermediaries? Maybe like gambling you can go for a middle ground approach. You accept people will engage in the behavior but you make companies go through a licensing process. I do not know what the AI Boyfriend equivalent to disclosing odds is but maybe certain predatory practices would be forbidden.

photonthug 3y ago

> if you consider the AI unethical then the onlyfans model has to be unethical as well because I see it as very similar. The only difference is the scale and the fact its a human doing the faking This difference seems important, indeed primary. To me, authenticity of the experience being sold is separate, secondary. (Tangent but lots of onlyfans customers are probably buying a feeling of power, and not a feeling of intimacy, so maybe they authentically get what they pay for anyway?) What I'm trying to say is that humans are going to exploit human needs/weaknesses in ways that are sometimes really gross. To a certain extent that is unavoidable, or rather trying to avoid it would involve society inserting itself between a lot of person-to-person interactions in a way that is probably a net harm. Even though this is true there is no reason to additionally allow corporations (or organizations of any kind really) to get deeply involved in the business of exploiting human needs/weaknesses. As an analogy, I'd say there's a major difference between tolerating gambling/confidence tricks from individual hustlers working the local park vs allowing the entire finance industry to scale up those same games. Both are exploiting people's desire to get rich quick, but scale, level of organization, and who profits matters. Maybe the hustler empties a few wallets to improve his own life, whereas finance as an industry can just about wreck the world. Also the hustler or the mark will eventually move on, or the hustler might feel bad, and at least in the process of exploitation there it's a somewhat fair fight in that it's 1v1. Meanwhile corporations are legion, are fiendishly patient, are intrinsically disinclined to feel bad about anything ever, etc. Difference seems clear to me

almatabata 3y ago
> As an analogy, I'd say there's a major difference between tolerating gambling/confidence tricks from individual hustlers working the local park vs allowing the entire finance industry to scale up those same games The thing is that both of these are still illegal on paper. Even if the police might turn a blind eye to some of it, in a court of law you would get convicted. In this specific example we are saying if you stay below a certain scale it is legal and intermediaries can profit. If you go above a certain scale it is illegal and banned. > Difference seems clear to me It is clear yes that one is more unethical than the other. As you say the difference between small crime and big crime. But both are still unethical to different degrees then. My worry do worry about unintended consequences. If you start banning companies on this basis, that you cannot sell fake intimacy, can you also sue individuals on the same basis or intermediaries? Maybe like gambling you can go for a middle ground approach. You accept people will engage in the behavior but you make companies go through a licensing process. I do not know what the AI Boyfriend equivalent to disclosing odds is but maybe certain predatory practices would be forbidden.