4 ms·

Yes. Friends in the sense I explained before. Someone who understands, is real, and do not want to use them for profit or disputes. It's not hard to grasp. An

Yes. Friends in the sense I explained before. Someone who understands, is real, and do not want to use them for profit or disputes. It's not hard to grasp. An AI bot is not a friend, it is insulting. If I'm right it will be rejected or misused.

squigz 2y ago
You are right, in that people need real friends. You are wrong, in that people will turn to these products. I am telling you this after discussing such things at lengths with people, including the pros and cons of it, and why such things appeal to them. My conclusion is certainly not that they feel insulted by it. Feel free to dismiss that anecdote as, I don't know, 'market research' or something.
- alganet 2y ago
  It is already an insult. The online social thing is related to the causes of this "loneliness" (it's more like forced isolation). Just because they are constrained from expressing it, it doesn't mean they do not feel insulted. Inability to represent a feeling is not the same as acceptance. A common mistake. The "market research" I am referring to is the use of statistics and social profiling, not this conversation or any anecdote. I think those methods are broken.
  - squigz 2y ago
    It's rather convenient that anyone that doesn't agree with your personal view is just... wrong, and they really do feel this way, they just can't talk about it.
    - alganet 2y ago
      It's a conditional. I am predicting something based on observation. The unfolding of those things (AI companions, incels, use of those things for manipulation) will tell if I am wrong or not. I think it's cute that you are slowly trying to steer the conversation towards this "feeling of loneliness" by selecting what parts of my answers you decide to quote and address. However, the parts you chose _not_ to address tell more about who's trying to create a convenient narrative than the comments themselves. As I said, the process of creating kind human beings that are not fools is what I aim for. Definitely not winning some vain debate.
      - squigz 2y ago
        What parts have I not addressed that you think I should? I'm trying to make you understand that maybe there's other valid reasons people may be drawn to AI companions - and if I'm right, your misunderstanding of why people are or are not drawn to such things will make it really hard for you to make any progress in your goal of "creating kind human beings that are not fools" Anyway, in my experience, most people are in fact kind by nature and not fools. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective and approaching people with a bit more good faith; not assuming they're unkind, or telling them how they really should feel. Maybe if people were willing to see the other side a little bit more, and have a bit of empathy for others' feelings, they'd not feel the need to retreat from the world.
        alganet 2y ago
        I did in fact recognized another use for it. Bullying with AI generated content. That is one of many points you decided not to address. I don't need to repeat them, go over the thread. The discussion on whether humans are good or bad by nature is not new. So is the discussion of nature and nurture. Let's assume we're both familiar with that, otherwise the discussion will be dragged to philosophical mud. "Making kind human beings" is not a goal. It's not a project I am working on. It's the way I framed the problem. That is in fact the most empathic way I could think of. Definitely better than thinking of products. Desensitization is a social condition, not a sign of unkindness. It has been demonstrated by the "guard" personas in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Incels are not the only current branch of online people presenting that symptom (although they are the only ones that _appear_ to be sad and lonely). Empathy is very different from talking soft and making good will speeches. Specially in an environment such as the internet that is deprived of many social cues.

squigz 2y ago

You are right, in that people need real friends. You are wrong, in that people will turn to these products. I am telling you this after discussing such things at lengths with people, including the pros and cons of it, and why such things appeal to them. My conclusion is certainly not that they feel insulted by it. Feel free to dismiss that anecdote as, I don't know, 'market research' or something.

alganet 2y ago
It is already an insult. The online social thing is related to the causes of this "loneliness" (it's more like forced isolation). Just because they are constrained from expressing it, it doesn't mean they do not feel insulted. Inability to represent a feeling is not the same as acceptance. A common mistake. The "market research" I am referring to is the use of statistics and social profiling, not this conversation or any anecdote. I think those methods are broken.
- squigz 2y ago
  It's rather convenient that anyone that doesn't agree with your personal view is just... wrong, and they really do feel this way, they just can't talk about it.
  - alganet 2y ago
    It's a conditional. I am predicting something based on observation. The unfolding of those things (AI companions, incels, use of those things for manipulation) will tell if I am wrong or not. I think it's cute that you are slowly trying to steer the conversation towards this "feeling of loneliness" by selecting what parts of my answers you decide to quote and address. However, the parts you chose _not_ to address tell more about who's trying to create a convenient narrative than the comments themselves. As I said, the process of creating kind human beings that are not fools is what I aim for. Definitely not winning some vain debate.
    - squigz 2y ago
      What parts have I not addressed that you think I should? I'm trying to make you understand that maybe there's other valid reasons people may be drawn to AI companions - and if I'm right, your misunderstanding of why people are or are not drawn to such things will make it really hard for you to make any progress in your goal of "creating kind human beings that are not fools" Anyway, in my experience, most people are in fact kind by nature and not fools. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective and approaching people with a bit more good faith; not assuming they're unkind, or telling them how they really should feel. Maybe if people were willing to see the other side a little bit more, and have a bit of empathy for others' feelings, they'd not feel the need to retreat from the world.
      - alganet 2y ago
        I did in fact recognized another use for it. Bullying with AI generated content. That is one of many points you decided not to address. I don't need to repeat them, go over the thread. The discussion on whether humans are good or bad by nature is not new. So is the discussion of nature and nurture. Let's assume we're both familiar with that, otherwise the discussion will be dragged to philosophical mud. "Making kind human beings" is not a goal. It's not a project I am working on. It's the way I framed the problem. That is in fact the most empathic way I could think of. Definitely better than thinking of products. Desensitization is a social condition, not a sign of unkindness. It has been demonstrated by the "guard" personas in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Incels are not the only current branch of online people presenting that symptom (although they are the only ones that _appear_ to be sad and lonely). Empathy is very different from talking soft and making good will speeches. Specially in an environment such as the internet that is deprived of many social cues.