7 ms·
There are plenty of reasons why having a chatbot partner is a bad idea (especially for young people), but here's just a few: - The sycophantic and unchallengin
by quitit 11mo ago
There are plenty of reasons why having a chatbot partner is a bad idea (especially for young people), but here's just a few:
- The sycophantic and unchallenging behaviours of chatbots leaves a person unconditioned for human interactions. Real relationships have friction, from this we develop important interpersonal skills such as setting boundaries, settling disagreements, building compromise, standing up for oneself, understanding one another, and so on. These also have an effect on one's personal identity and self-value.
- Real relationships have the input from each participant, whereas chatbots are responding to the user's contribution only. The chatbot doesn't have its own life experiences and happenings to bring to the relationship, nor does it instigate autonomously, it's always some kind of structured reply to the user.
- The implication of being fully satisfied by a chatbot is that the person is seeking a partner who does not contribute to the relationship, but rather just an entity that only acts in response to them. It can also be an indication of some kind of problem that the individual needs to work through with why they don't want to seek genuine human connection.
- nostrademons 11mo agoThese are only problems if you assume the person later wants to come back to having human relationships. If you assume AI relationships are the new normal and the future looks kinda like The Matrix, with each person having their own constructed version of reality while their life-force is bled dry by some superintelligent machine, then it is all working as designed.
- vasco 11mo agoSomeone has to make the babies!
- nostrademons 11mo agoDecanting jars, a la Brave New World!
- zem 11mo agodon't worry, "how is babby formed" is surely in every llm training set
- jihadjihad 11mo ago“how girl get pragnent”
- peacebeard 11mo agoWait, how did this work in The Matrix exactly?
- zombiwoof 11mo ago[dead]
- driggs 11mo agoIt could be the case that society is responding to overpopulation in many strange ways that serve to reduce/reverse the growth of a stressed population. Perhaps not making as many babies is the longterm solution.
- GuinansEyebrows 11mo agough. speak of the devil and he shall appear.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- prawn 11mo agoHuman relationships are part of most families, most work, etc. Could get tedious constantly dealing with people who lack any resilience or understanding of other perspectives.
- nostrademons 11mo agoThe point is you wouldn't deal with people. Every interaction becomes a transaction mediated by an AI that's designed to make you happy. You would never genuinely come in contact with other perspectives; everything would be filtered and altered to fit your preconceptions. It's like all those dystopias where you live in a simulation but your real body is wasting away in a vat or pod or cryochamber.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- AI_rumination 11mo agoLove your thoughts about needing input from others! In Autistic / ADHD circles, the lack of input from other people, and the feedback of thoughts being amplified by oneself is called rumination. It can happen for many multiple ways-- lack of social discussion, drugs, etc. AI psychosis is just rumination, but the bot expands and validates your own ideas, making them appear to be validated by others. For vulnerable people, AI can be incredibly useful, but also dangerous. It requires individuals to deliberately self-regulate, pause, and break the cycle of rumination.
- DaiPlusPlus 11mo ago> In Autistic / ADHD circles i.e. HN comments
- mrguyorama 11mo agoNah, most circles of neurodivergent people I've been around have humility and are aware of their own fallibility.
- namanyayg 11mo agoIs this clearly AI-generated comment part of the joke?
- jordanb 11mo ago> The sycophantic and unchallenging behaviours of chatbots leaves a person unconditioned for human interactions I saw a take that the AI chatbots have basically given us all the experience of being a billionaire: being coddled by sycophants, but without the billions to protect us from the consequences of the behaviors that encourages.
- Terr_ 11mo ago> chatbots are responding to the user's contribution only Which is also why I feel the label "LLM Psychosis" has some merit to it, despite sounding scary. Much like auditory hallucinations where voices are conveying ideas that seem-external-but-aren't... you can get actual text/sound conveying ideas that seem-external-but-aren't. Oh, sure, even a real human can repeat ideas back at you in a conversation, but there's still some minimal level of vetting or filtering or rephrasing by another human mind.
- ouaihomme 11mo ago> even a real human can repeat ideas back at you in a conversation, but there's still some minimal level of vetting or filtering or rephrasing by another human mind. The mental corruption due to surrounding oneself with sycophantic yes men is historically well documented.
- jamiek88 11mo agoExcellent point. It’s bad for humans when humans do it! Imagine the perfect sycophant, never tires or dies, never slips, never pulls a bad facial expression, can immediately swerve their thoughts to match yours with no hiccups. It was a danger for tyrants and it’s now a danger for the lonely.
- Terr_ 11mo agoI wonder if in the future that'll ever be a formal medical condition: Sycophancy poisoning, with chronic exposure leading to a syndrome of some sort...
- creata 11mo ago> The sycophantic and unchallenging behaviours of chatbots leaves a person unconditioned for human interactions. To be honest, the alternative for a good chunk of these users is no interaction at all, and that sort of isolation doesn't prepare you for human interaction either.
- Guvante 11mo agoWouldn't they be seeking a romantic relationship otherwise? Using AI to fulfill a need implies a need which usually results in action towards that need. Even "the dating scene is terrible" is human interaction.
- DocTomoe 11mo agoWe do see - from 'crazy cat lady' to 'incel', from 'where have all the good men gone' to the rapid decline of the numbers of 25-year-olds who have had sexual experiences, not to mention from the 'loneliness epidemic' that has several governments, especially in Europe, alarmed enough to make it an agenda pointt: No, they would not. Not all of them. Not even a majority. AI in these cases is just a better 'litter of 50 cats', a better, less-destructive, less-suffering-creating fantasy.
- im3w1l 11mo agoSwiping on thousands of people without getting a single date is not human interaction and that's the reality for some people. I still don't think an AI partner is a good solution, but you are seriously underestimating how bad the status quo is.
- bakugo 11mo ago> Swiping on thousands of people without getting a single date is not human interaction and that's the reality for some people. For some people, yes, but 99% of those people are men. The whole "women with AI boyfriends" thing is an entirely different issue.
- 11mo ago
- Hard_Space 11mo agoThis. If you never train stick, you can never drive stick, just automatic. And if you never let a real person break your heart or otherwise disappoint you, you'll never be ready for real people.
- DocTomoe 11mo agoAh, 'suffering builds character'. I haven't had that one in a while. Maybe we should not want to get prepared for RealPeople™ if all they can do is break us and disappoint us. "But RealPeople™ can also elevate, surprise, and enchant you!" you may intervene. They sure than. An still, some may decide no longer to go for new rounds of Russian roulette. Someone like that is not a lesser person, they still have real™ enjoyment in a hundred other aspects in their life from music to being a food nerd. they just don't make their happiness dependant on volatile actors. AI chatbots as relationship replacements are, in many ways, flight simulators: Are they 'the real thing'? Nah, sitting in a real Cessna almost always beats a computer screen and a keyboard. Are they always a worse situation than 'the real thing'? Simulators sure beat reality when reality is 'dual engine flameout halfway over the North Pacific' Are they cheaper? YES, significantly! Are they 'good enough'? For many, they are. Are they 'syncophantic'? Yes, insofar as that circumstances are decided beforehand. A 'real' pilot doesn't get to choose 'blue skies, little sheep clouds in the sky', they only get to chosen not to fly that day. And the standard weather settings? Not exactly 'hurricane, category 5'. Are they available, while real flight is not, to some or all members of the public? Generally yes. The simulator doesn't make you have a current medical. Are they removing pilots/humans from 'the scene'? No, not really. In fact, many pilots fly simulators for risk-free training of extreme situations. Your argument is basically 'A flight simulator won’t teach you what it feels like when the engine coughs for real at 1000 ft above ground and your hands shake on the yoke.'. No, it doesn't. An frankly, there are experiences you can live without - especially those you may not survive (emotionally). Society has always had the tendency to pathologize those who do not pursue a sexual relationship as lesser humans. (Especially) single women that were too happy in the medevieal age? Witches that needed burning. Guy who preferred reading to dancing? A 'weirdo and a creep'. English knows 'master' for the unmarried, 'incomplete' man, an 'mister' for the one who got married. And today? those who are incapable or unwilling to participate in the dating scene are branded 'girlfailure' or 'incel' - with the latter group considered a walking security risk. Let's not add to the stigma by playing another tune for the 'oh, everyone must get out there' scene.
- binary132 11mo agoI share your concerns about the risks of over-reliance on AI companions—here are three key points that resonate deeply with me: • Firstly, these systems tend to exhibit excessively agreeable patterns, which can hinder the development of resilience in navigating authentic human conflict and growth. • Secondly, true relational depth requires mutual independent agency and lived experience that current models simply cannot provide autonomously. • Thirdly, while convenience is tempting, substituting genuine reciprocity with perfectly tailored responses may signal deeper unmet needs worth examining thoughtfully. Let’s all strive to prioritize real human bonds—after all, that’s what makes life meaningfully complex and rewarding!
- gonzobonzo 11mo agoThat's the default chatbot behavior. Many of these people appear to be creating their own personalities for the chatbots, and it's not too difficult to make an opinionated and challenging chatbot, or one that mimics someone who has their own experiences. Though designing one's ideal partner certainly raises some questions, and I wouldn't be surprised if many are picking sycophantic over challenging. People opting for unchallenging pseudo-relationships over messy human interaction is part of a larger trend, though. It's why you see people shopping around until they find a therapist who will tell them what they want to hear, or why you see people opt to raise dogs instead of kids.
- crustaceansoup 11mo agoYou can make an LLM play pretend at being opinionated and challenging. But it's still an LLM. It's still being sycophantic: it's only "challenging" because that's what you want. And the prompt / context is going to leak into its output and affect what it says, whether you want it to or not, because that's just how LLMs work, so it never really has its own opinions about anything at all.
- palmotea 11mo ago>> That's the default chatbot behavior. Many of these people appear to be creating their own personalities for the chatbots, and it's not too difficult to make an opinionated and challenging chatbot, or one that mimics someone who has their own experiences. Though designing one's ideal partner certainly raises some questions, and I wouldn't be surprised if many are picking sycophantic over challenging. > You can make an LLM play pretend at being opinionated and challenging. But it's still an LLM. It's still being sycophantic: it's only "challenging" because that's what you want. Also: if someone makes it "challenging" it's only going to be "challenging" with the scare quotes, it's not actually going to be challenging. Would anyone deliberately, consciously program in a real challenge and put up with all the negative feelings a real challenge would cause and invest that kind of mental energy for a chatbot? It's like stepping on a thorn. Sometimes you step on one and you've got to deal with the pain, but no sane person is going to go out stepping on thorns deliberately because of that.
- 11mo ago
- jaredklewis 11mo agoI don’t know. This reminds me of how people talked about violent video games 15 years back. Do FPS games desensitize and predispose gamers to violence, or are they an outlet? I think for essentially all gamers, games are games and the real world is the real world. Behavior in one realm doesn’t just inherently transfer to the other.
- DrierCycle 11mo agoWords are simula. They're models, not games, we do not use them as games in conversation.
- echelon 11mo agoUnless someone is harming themselves or others, who are we to judge? We don't know that this is harmful. Those participating in it seem happier. If we learn in the course of time (a decade?) that this degrades lives with some probability, we can begin to caution or intervene. But how in God's name would we even know that now? I would posit this likey has measurable good outcomes right now. These people self-report as happier. Why don't we trust them? What signs are they showing otherwise? People were crying about dialup internet being bad for kids when it provided a social and intellectual outlet for me. It seems to be a pattern as old as time for people to be skeptical about new ways for people to spend their time. Especially if it is deemed "antisocial" or against "norms". There is obviously a big negative externality with things like social media or certain forms of pay-to-play gaming, where there are strong financial interests to create habits and get people angry or willing to open their wallets. But I don't see that here, at least not yet. If the companies start saying, "subscribe or your boyfriend dies", then we have cause for alarm. A lot of these bots seem to be open source, which is actually pretty intriguing.
- ArcHound 11mo agoIt seems we're not quite there, yes. But you should have seen the despair when GPT 5 was rolled out to replace GPT 4. These people were miserable. Complaining about a complete personality change of their "partner", the desperation in their words seemed genuine.
- tomaskafka 11mo ago... and with this, you named the entire retention model of the whole AI industry. Kudos!