4 ms·

https://www.reddit.com/r/MyBoyfriendIsAI/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MyBoyfriendIsAI/ in the wild. Rough stuff.

by conception 11mo ago

qwertytyyuu 11mo ago
I'm glad to not have seen a r/MyBabyIsAI yet
- netsharc 11mo ago
  My new startup is named TamagotchAI..
lotsofpulp 11mo ago
The linked study is of 29 “people” (assuming they are real). How do we know if these examples aren’t just the 0.1% of the population that is, for all intend and purposes, “out there”? So much of “news” is just finding these corner cases that evoke emotion, but ultimately have no impact.
- conception 11mo ago
  The outcry when 4o was discontinued was such that open AI kept it on paying subscriptions. There are at least enough people attached to certain AI voices that it warrants a tech startup spending the resources to keep an old model around. That’s probably not an insignificant population.
- yapyap 11mo ago
  I think it IS 0.1% (or less, hopefully) of the population. But it’s hard to study users having these relationships without studying the users who have these relationships I reckon.
- hluska 11mo ago
  The Stanford Prison Experiment only had 24 participants and implementation problems that should have concerned anyone with a pulse. But it’s been taught for decades. A lot of psych research uses small samples. It’s a problem, but funding is limited and so it’s a start. Other researchers can take this and build upon it. Anecdotally, watching people meltdown over the end of ChatGPT 4o indicates this is a bigger problem that 0.1%. And business wise, it would be odd if OpenAI kept an entire model available to serve that small a population.
  - lotsofpulp 11mo ago
    The stanford prison experiment is unverifiable. Another example of one of these emotion evoking stories. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31380664/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31380664/ See critiques of validity section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
mothballed 11mo ago
[flagged]
- hartator 11mo ago
  You rather have AI relationships instead of actual kids?
  - mothballed 11mo ago
    I have actual kids and am pretty happy with my family life. But many aren't, and some people might even have a level of rare self awareness to know that anyone they'd [be able to] marry would hate them.
    - Tade0 11mo ago
      That is: 1. Not a given. 2. Something one can work on so that they're either more likeable or at the very least less defeatist about the whole thing.
      - mothballed 11mo ago
        The only thing that's a given is that it's possible that you'll end up paying child support and alimony to someone that hates you, if you marry in real life and have real children. Choosing you'd rather have AI wife and kids, rather than deal with the potential that many real people will face of paying child support and alimony to someone that hates them -- I don't see as an irrational decision (although not an inevitable one either). In fact, if you don't consider at least the possibility, you are a fool.
        Tade0 11mo ago
        But you're not actually having this wife and children if they're AI - they're an illusion, a simulation that only superficially resembles the real thing. It's a poor substitute and you out of all people should know that. > I don't see as an irrational decision Here's where it's irrational: the mere possibility is not enough to abandon the prospect because if one wanted to be consistent, they'd have to avoid similar risks, so ultimately hardly do anything. Risks are an inherent part of life and those who avoid them at all costs are universally and consistently miserable.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MyBoyfriendIsAI/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MyBoyfriendIsAI/ in the wild. Rough stuff.

qwertytyyuu 11mo ago

I'm glad to not have seen a r/MyBabyIsAI yet

netsharc 11mo ago
My new startup is named TamagotchAI..

lotsofpulp 11mo ago

The linked study is of 29 “people” (assuming they are real). How do we know if these examples aren’t just the 0.1% of the population that is, for all intend and purposes, “out there”? So much of “news” is just finding these corner cases that evoke emotion, but ultimately have no impact.

conception 11mo ago
The outcry when 4o was discontinued was such that open AI kept it on paying subscriptions. There are at least enough people attached to certain AI voices that it warrants a tech startup spending the resources to keep an old model around. That’s probably not an insignificant population.
yapyap 11mo ago
I think it IS 0.1% (or less, hopefully) of the population. But it’s hard to study users having these relationships without studying the users who have these relationships I reckon.
hluska 11mo ago
The Stanford Prison Experiment only had 24 participants and implementation problems that should have concerned anyone with a pulse. But it’s been taught for decades. A lot of psych research uses small samples. It’s a problem, but funding is limited and so it’s a start. Other researchers can take this and build upon it. Anecdotally, watching people meltdown over the end of ChatGPT 4o indicates this is a bigger problem that 0.1%. And business wise, it would be odd if OpenAI kept an entire model available to serve that small a population.
- lotsofpulp 11mo ago
  The stanford prison experiment is unverifiable. Another example of one of these emotion evoking stories. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31380664/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31380664/ See critiques of validity section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

mothballed 11mo ago

[flagged]

hartator 11mo ago
You rather have AI relationships instead of actual kids?
- mothballed 11mo ago
  I have actual kids and am pretty happy with my family life. But many aren't, and some people might even have a level of rare self awareness to know that anyone they'd [be able to] marry would hate them.
  - Tade0 11mo ago
    That is: 1. Not a given. 2. Something one can work on so that they're either more likeable or at the very least less defeatist about the whole thing.
    - mothballed 11mo ago
      The only thing that's a given is that it's possible that you'll end up paying child support and alimony to someone that hates you, if you marry in real life and have real children. Choosing you'd rather have AI wife and kids, rather than deal with the potential that many real people will face of paying child support and alimony to someone that hates them -- I don't see as an irrational decision (although not an inevitable one either). In fact, if you don't consider at least the possibility, you are a fool.
      - Tade0 11mo ago
        But you're not actually having this wife and children if they're AI - they're an illusion, a simulation that only superficially resembles the real thing. It's a poor substitute and you out of all people should know that. > I don't see as an irrational decision Here's where it's irrational: the mere possibility is not enough to abandon the prospect because if one wanted to be consistent, they'd have to avoid similar risks, so ultimately hardly do anything. Risks are an inherent part of life and those who avoid them at all costs are universally and consistently miserable.