3 ms·

> AI is deepening the previously parasocial relationships we had with our favorite anime characters from passive linear media, into powerful new, interactive re

> AI is deepening the previously parasocial relationships we had with our favorite anime characters from passive linear media, into powerful new, interactive relationships. I truly can't believe they had the gall to publish this article. The more of the article I read the more I felt like I was reading their strategy for preying on the weak and unfortunate.

adamwong246 2y ago
You are right to be horrified but what is the use in maintaining the pretense that we are not strip-mining our citizens of their attention?
Vegenoid 2y ago
It is truly shameless - and they are this shameless because they can be, and may even be rewarded for it. AI "companions", if left unchecked, will be as harmful as addictive drugs, enabling companies to suck everything from some people.
- imiric 2y ago
  But that future is coming regardless if VCs bet on it or not. I'm not defending the article and agree with you that it's despicable, but the only thing successful VC firms know how to do is to bet on companies that will make them money. It's clear that a future where AI companions exist is coming, and it will be a huge industry, so it's only logical that they would latch on to it and promote it in the only way they know how. As for AI companions themselves, sure. They will be addicting and harmful, but technology is already that. Yet loneliness is a worldwide epidemic, and I reckon that AI has the potential to also improve the quality of life for many people. This in turn will lead us to even lower birth rates, but that seems inescapable as well. The next 50 years will be interesting, to say the least.
  - Vegenoid 2y ago
    Personally, I foresee legislation restricting AI emotional/sexual companions, which I think I would support (depending on the details). Specifically, I would want to make it illegal to sell access to AI companions, but not criminalize talking to or using AI companions. This targets punishment at the exploiters rather than the exploited. It’s possible I could be swayed by the “these are more helpful than harmful” argument, but more evidence is required on both sides. I’m sure there will be plenty of evidence coming.
    - imiric 2y ago
      > I would want to make it illegal to sell access to AI companions, but not criminalize talking to or using AI companions. Seriously? How could that possibly work for people who don't want to build their own robots and AI? If there's demand for it, there should be a free market for it. Regulated in some way, of course. Yes, there will be companies that will abuse this and people will get exploited, just as there are companies that do that today, but the alternative sounds like living in a police state. This argument is similar to the "war" on drugs. We know that an outright ban does more harm than good, but even just decriminalizing consumption doesn't get rid of a black market and associated issues. See the current situation in The Netherlands, for example. The path forward is clearly full legalization, regulated in some way by the state, as exemplified by the US in the last couple of decades. These regulations can be too broad or strict, but as with any market, some balance must be found that benefits society as a whole.
      - Vegenoid 2y ago
        As you mention, there are already many laws that make sale of certain goods or services or illegal. I believe the majority of the populace is in favor of the majority of those laws. While I am in favor of places trying drug legalization, and certainly think there are drugs that are currently illegal that should not be, I (and most people) are unconvinced that legalization is the correct path for highly addictive drugs like opiates or amphetamines. Oregon has recently reversed their drug decriminalization due to its perceived negative externalities and failure to reduce harm. No, this is not solid evidence that decriminalization/legalization doesn't work, but is some evidence. More data required. To the point - yes, I generally believe that the law should prevent the sale of some things due to their negative externalities. Most people feel the same.
papashell 2y ago
> AI is deepening the parasocial relationships Fixed.
latexr 2y ago
And they called it “our favourite anime characters”, as if we’re supposed to believe the blood-sucking money-addicted pariahs at a16z are fans. The whole article reads like a book report from Steve Buscemi’s “how do you do, fellow kids” character, with a few choice phrases from a “most popular anime quotes” buzzfeed article. I cringed. It is unsurprising that both “contributors” have “web3” listed as one of their focus.

adamwong246 2y ago

You are right to be horrified but what is the use in maintaining the pretense that we are not strip-mining our citizens of their attention?

Vegenoid 2y ago

It is truly shameless - and they are this shameless because they can be, and may even be rewarded for it. AI "companions", if left unchecked, will be as harmful as addictive drugs, enabling companies to suck everything from some people.

imiric 2y ago
But that future is coming regardless if VCs bet on it or not. I'm not defending the article and agree with you that it's despicable, but the only thing successful VC firms know how to do is to bet on companies that will make them money. It's clear that a future where AI companions exist is coming, and it will be a huge industry, so it's only logical that they would latch on to it and promote it in the only way they know how. As for AI companions themselves, sure. They will be addicting and harmful, but technology is already that. Yet loneliness is a worldwide epidemic, and I reckon that AI has the potential to also improve the quality of life for many people. This in turn will lead us to even lower birth rates, but that seems inescapable as well. The next 50 years will be interesting, to say the least.
- Vegenoid 2y ago
  Personally, I foresee legislation restricting AI emotional/sexual companions, which I think I would support (depending on the details). Specifically, I would want to make it illegal to sell access to AI companions, but not criminalize talking to or using AI companions. This targets punishment at the exploiters rather than the exploited. It’s possible I could be swayed by the “these are more helpful than harmful” argument, but more evidence is required on both sides. I’m sure there will be plenty of evidence coming.
  - imiric 2y ago
    > I would want to make it illegal to sell access to AI companions, but not criminalize talking to or using AI companions. Seriously? How could that possibly work for people who don't want to build their own robots and AI? If there's demand for it, there should be a free market for it. Regulated in some way, of course. Yes, there will be companies that will abuse this and people will get exploited, just as there are companies that do that today, but the alternative sounds like living in a police state. This argument is similar to the "war" on drugs. We know that an outright ban does more harm than good, but even just decriminalizing consumption doesn't get rid of a black market and associated issues. See the current situation in The Netherlands, for example. The path forward is clearly full legalization, regulated in some way by the state, as exemplified by the US in the last couple of decades. These regulations can be too broad or strict, but as with any market, some balance must be found that benefits society as a whole.
    - Vegenoid 2y ago
      As you mention, there are already many laws that make sale of certain goods or services or illegal. I believe the majority of the populace is in favor of the majority of those laws. While I am in favor of places trying drug legalization, and certainly think there are drugs that are currently illegal that should not be, I (and most people) are unconvinced that legalization is the correct path for highly addictive drugs like opiates or amphetamines. Oregon has recently reversed their drug decriminalization due to its perceived negative externalities and failure to reduce harm. No, this is not solid evidence that decriminalization/legalization doesn't work, but is some evidence. More data required. To the point - yes, I generally believe that the law should prevent the sale of some things due to their negative externalities. Most people feel the same.

papashell 2y ago

> AI is deepening the parasocial relationships Fixed.

latexr 2y ago

And they called it “our favourite anime characters”, as if we’re supposed to believe the blood-sucking money-addicted pariahs at a16z are fans. The whole article reads like a book report from Steve Buscemi’s “how do you do, fellow kids” character, with a few choice phrases from a “most popular anime quotes” buzzfeed article. I cringed. It is unsurprising that both “contributors” have “web3” listed as one of their focus.