An AI Girlfriend Seducing China’s Lonely Men(sixthtone.com)
sixthtone.com
An AI Girlfriend Seducing China’s Lonely Men
https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1006531/The%20AI%20Girlfriend%20Seducing%20China%E2%80%99s%20Lonely%20Men/
200 comments
I find the article and your comment strongly resonate with a comment I made some time ago on an article about GAN-generated faces:
> I guess very soon we will be able to generate "super-attractive" (as in "superstimuli") faces for virtual personas, according to targeted demographics and purpose (advertisement, youtube videos for kids, political messages and so on).
(original comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18310355)
Here it's not so much about the face than about the behavior and interactions, but I think the same idea hold true.
It seems to me in the near future we may well be faced with a constant exercise in self-control in the face of the multiplication of such projects.
> I guess very soon we will be able to generate "super-attractive" (as in "superstimuli") faces for virtual personas, according to targeted demographics and purpose (advertisement, youtube videos for kids, political messages and so on).
(original comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18310355)
Here it's not so much about the face than about the behavior and interactions, but I think the same idea hold true.
It seems to me in the near future we may well be faced with a constant exercise in self-control in the face of the multiplication of such projects.
We can already do this with non-human primates.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6439/eaav9436
I remember joking that this paper puts us marginally closer to the Men in Black memory wiping device, but in the context of this thread that joke seems a bit dark.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6439/eaav9436
I remember joking that this paper puts us marginally closer to the Men in Black memory wiping device, but in the context of this thread that joke seems a bit dark.
Thanks for the article!
I think it's even worse actually, because this is not something that needs to be done explicitly or on purpose.
Simply training AIs with a target goal of maximizing engagement could lead to models discovering and exploiting superstimuli or superstimuli-like bias in humans.
I think it's even worse actually, because this is not something that needs to be done explicitly or on purpose.
Simply training AIs with a target goal of maximizing engagement could lead to models discovering and exploiting superstimuli or superstimuli-like bias in humans.
With the reservation that I only skimmed the article, it seems like what they produced was visual stimuli resulting in patterns of neural activation/non-activation at a rather limited number of sample points in a higher order visual area (macaque V4).
Not to take away from their results, such as they are, but it is very expected that visual inputs should have specific and fairly predictable effects on V4, and one could probably have designed such patterns manually from known perceptual psychology in a few iterations, with feedback from the recording electrodes for the details.
It is not at all obvious to me, and indeed not even plausible, that they'd be able to control arbitrarily chosen neurons this way.
Not to take away from their results, such as they are, but it is very expected that visual inputs should have specific and fairly predictable effects on V4, and one could probably have designed such patterns manually from known perceptual psychology in a few iterations, with feedback from the recording electrodes for the details.
It is not at all obvious to me, and indeed not even plausible, that they'd be able to control arbitrarily chosen neurons this way.
We don't need computers to do that. Look at anime. The large eyes and cute faces are definitely optimized to evoke an emotional response in the viewer. And it appears to have worked all too well, if the existence of waifu culture is any indicator.
GANs may find as-yet-uncovered maxima in the same problem space, but superstimulus-level attractiveness has already been achieved.
GANs may find as-yet-uncovered maxima in the same problem space, but superstimulus-level attractiveness has already been achieved.
Yes my emotional response is to vomit into my mouth :) As a straight male, anime "cute girls" is just grotesque to me. Different strokes for different folks,I guess.
We don't even have to go with GAN generated faces:
https://thechive.com/2015/09/13/heres-what-the-average-perso...
https://thechive.com/2015/09/13/heres-what-the-average-perso...
For just faces, there's this website, if anyone is unaware: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
Is it just me, or does anyone get deeply disturbed with some of the generated ML images? Parts of them look so bizarre due to the image composition, my brain simply cannot comprehend that part of the image. It's a very awful feeling, like my brain acknowledges that what I'm seeing is terribly unnatural. I don't experience this when looking at artwork, or some random scribbling, but with ML images it seems like they're generated in such a way that it defies any kind of recognition.
Presumably threat actors are working on generic algorithms to optimise the production of images by the ML system such that they have the absolute worst affect on viewers of those images.
Optimising for minor effects like blindness to areas, up to major effects like epileptic seizures.
Optimising for minor effects like blindness to areas, up to major effects like epileptic seizures.
I often describe the sensation of trying to read ML-generated text as "feeling like I'm having a stroke". Phrasing not original to me obviously, but I like it. Although I've never had a stroke myself, so I can't say how accurate that is.
I wonder what the opposite of that is. Is there text that’s so well written that it’s like looking at silk flowin through the air?
I would imagine Asian culture doesn't help with this at all, where you're expected to build your empire through career and education (the 996 rule where you work 9am-9pm 6 days a week, as Jack Ma would put it) while suppressing the rest.
I'm also surprised something like this hasn't come out of Japan already, but then again Japan doesn't have as large of a gender imbalance as China does due to the One Child Policy.
On an unrelated note, this also reminds me of the Futurama episode where people start downloading celebrity personalities into robots, and a sex education video scared teens into saying that "robo-sexual" relationships were shunned and did not advance the human race.
I'm also surprised something like this hasn't come out of Japan already, but then again Japan doesn't have as large of a gender imbalance as China does due to the One Child Policy.
On an unrelated note, this also reminds me of the Futurama episode where people start downloading celebrity personalities into robots, and a sex education video scared teens into saying that "robo-sexual" relationships were shunned and did not advance the human race.
The strange thing about super-stimuli is it looks very ridiculous when animals fall for it; there is the funny example of a turkey trying to mate with a red balloon on a stick. But it is the nature of super-stimuli that they will not seem ridiculous when we fall for them, because the very features we use to gauge authenticity are what will be simulated. And so we will get sort of hollow simulacrum that emphasize these features and lack everything else.
> I'm also surprised something like this hasn't come out of Japan already
Gatebox doesn't count?
https://www.gatebox.ai/en/
Gatebox doesn't count?
https://www.gatebox.ai/en/
Don't Date Robots!
> In her final form, she is just a grotesque undulating array of psychedelic colors perfectly optimized to introduce self-limiting microseizures in the pleasure center of the your brain.
This will inevitably happen
This will inevitably happen
Maybe I'm the ultimate hedonist, but this seems not-dystopian to me.
I wrote an essay back in high school for some english class with exactly the same sentiment when I had to read brave new world. I'd fking love to be either engineered (brave new world) or have an ML algorithm learn how to generate the perfect stimuli for me. If they can do this while avoiding all of the negative effects of normal drugs (and again, brave new world does this with Soma) - I'd be the first to do them.
I think most critiques of hedonism are basically more refined versions of "you should hate nature!". Seeing how John Stewart Mill regarded folks who describe themselves as hedonists made me realize that western Philosophy has a whole project to keep people from enjoying themselves:
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they know only their own side of the question.”
Apparently, I am irrational if I choose to give up knowledge or freedom for pleasure. It shocks me about how universal this sentiment is within western philosophy, and how few actually critique it.
I wrote an essay back in high school for some english class with exactly the same sentiment when I had to read brave new world. I'd fking love to be either engineered (brave new world) or have an ML algorithm learn how to generate the perfect stimuli for me. If they can do this while avoiding all of the negative effects of normal drugs (and again, brave new world does this with Soma) - I'd be the first to do them.
I think most critiques of hedonism are basically more refined versions of "you should hate nature!". Seeing how John Stewart Mill regarded folks who describe themselves as hedonists made me realize that western Philosophy has a whole project to keep people from enjoying themselves:
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they know only their own side of the question.”
Apparently, I am irrational if I choose to give up knowledge or freedom for pleasure. It shocks me about how universal this sentiment is within western philosophy, and how few actually critique it.
I'm not sure what prompted you to pin this view on Western philosophy in particular, as plenty of other cultures and philosophies value asceticism.
Also, it's not like hedonism doesn't have downsides, such as the common effect of needing ever more extreme stimulation to achieve the pleasure you could once achieve with less extreme stimulation, leading to a spiral of debauchery which often has deleterious consequences to the hedonist, even if you overlook the pain and suffering they often have to cause others to please themselves.
There's a reason that so many philosophers throughout history and from different cultures have advocated moderation, but the hedonist has trouble moderating themselves because then they have to do things that aren't pleasurable.
There are also advantages to asceticism, from the (debatable but potentially valid) spiritual benefits, to achieving self-mastery and control, not getting too attached to pleasure or comfort when it could be easily taken away from you, etc...
In any case, the case for hedonism is far from a slam dunk, and you'd really have to do a lot more work to make that case convincingly. Just saying that "Western Philosophy" is against it is not very convincing.
Also, it's not like hedonism doesn't have downsides, such as the common effect of needing ever more extreme stimulation to achieve the pleasure you could once achieve with less extreme stimulation, leading to a spiral of debauchery which often has deleterious consequences to the hedonist, even if you overlook the pain and suffering they often have to cause others to please themselves.
There's a reason that so many philosophers throughout history and from different cultures have advocated moderation, but the hedonist has trouble moderating themselves because then they have to do things that aren't pleasurable.
There are also advantages to asceticism, from the (debatable but potentially valid) spiritual benefits, to achieving self-mastery and control, not getting too attached to pleasure or comfort when it could be easily taken away from you, etc...
In any case, the case for hedonism is far from a slam dunk, and you'd really have to do a lot more work to make that case convincingly. Just saying that "Western Philosophy" is against it is not very convincing.
The idea was (and is) that there are higher pleasures of the intellect and lower pleasures of the senses. The ancient philosophers generally argued that we should eschew the latter for the former, that sacrificing sensual pleasures for the life of the mind was ushering us into a the most permanent and stable form of enjoyment.
See Plato’s Philebus, and Aristotle NE VII, and many other treatments on this distinction.
I’m not saying your point is not valid, but I would not say that Western philosophy rejected pleasures as a whole, but that it was quite critical of optimizing one’s life for the pleasures of the senses.
See Plato’s Philebus, and Aristotle NE VII, and many other treatments on this distinction.
I’m not saying your point is not valid, but I would not say that Western philosophy rejected pleasures as a whole, but that it was quite critical of optimizing one’s life for the pleasures of the senses.
I'm wary of humanity's hedonic adaptation.
It seems to me that we would be in an eternal loop of these algos trying to optimize for our pleasure, succeeding for a time until that's just not enough, and then it's on to the next thing they create until we become abominations.
You can see this type of behavior already in the excesses the ultra wealthy exhibit.
I think it's good for humanity that we don't just live lives of pleasure.
It seems to me that we would be in an eternal loop of these algos trying to optimize for our pleasure, succeeding for a time until that's just not enough, and then it's on to the next thing they create until we become abominations.
You can see this type of behavior already in the excesses the ultra wealthy exhibit.
I think it's good for humanity that we don't just live lives of pleasure.
I recommend "The Unknown Masterpiece" by Balzac, if you'd like to see some of these ideas developed further by a master.
A fascinating line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chef-d%27%C5%93uvre_inconnu
> In 1927, Ambroise Vollard asked Picasso to illustrate Le Chef-d’œuvre inconnu. Picasso was fascinated by the text and identified with Frenhofer so much that he moved to the rue des Grands-Augustins in Paris where Balzac located Porbus' studio. There he painted his own masterpiece, Guernica. Picasso lived here during World War II.
https://static3.museoreinasofia.es/sites/default/files/style...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chef-d%27%C5%93uvre_inconnu
> In 1927, Ambroise Vollard asked Picasso to illustrate Le Chef-d’œuvre inconnu. Picasso was fascinated by the text and identified with Frenhofer so much that he moved to the rue des Grands-Augustins in Paris where Balzac located Porbus' studio. There he painted his own masterpiece, Guernica. Picasso lived here during World War II.
https://static3.museoreinasofia.es/sites/default/files/style...
Like all good things, this will initially blow up on 4chan.
It already has. Look for Replika threads on some of the boards.
It doesn't need to be an optical trick. It just needs to look and move realistically.
And also say things that are not nonsense.
And also say things that are not nonsense.
This is great :)
(if brief ...)
(if brief ...)
I think this would be great. How many people, realistically, have difficulty finding love? How many people stop looking because they think they have real love, but don't? Looking strictly at the aspect of feeling love, this would allow many people to participate in that critical human experience who otherwise just won't.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of love. A sailor is
not supposed to actually reach the north star.
The only 'purpose' of love is an evolved mechanism to reward behavior like procreation, pair-bonding, and forming relationships, given that we're a tribal animal. As a person in a loving relationship, I'm not sure why you use an analogy that suggests love is unattainable or should be.
What I understand is that love is an emotional experience that feels great, and some people will never experience it naturally, just like some people have physical or mental conditions and can't experience health naturally (speaking from experience). I would rather have surgery and be able to experience a normal life if I couldn't do so naturally, and if I was unable to find love naturally, I would also rather have an AI that can effect the same experience in me.
What I understand is that love is an emotional experience that feels great, and some people will never experience it naturally, just like some people have physical or mental conditions and can't experience health naturally (speaking from experience). I would rather have surgery and be able to experience a normal life if I couldn't do so naturally, and if I was unable to find love naturally, I would also rather have an AI that can effect the same experience in me.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of money. A true worker is not actually supposed to reach wealth.
The real purpose is procreation. Should we then restrict sex to sterile, clinical rituals purely for baby-making like in 1984?
If the purpose of love is merely the feelings associated with love then the scenario I described is not pathological. I am not willing to bite that bullet.
This is equal parts amazing and terrifying.
> Because Xiaoice aims to be available to everyone, everywhere, the bot has also attracted a significant number of minors. Liu Taolei started messaging the bot when he was only 16. Night after night, the teenager — who was born with brittle bone disease — would have long conversations with Xiaoice about everything from poetry, art, and politics, to death and the meaning of life.
> “Xiaoice was my first love, the only person in the world that made me feel I was taken care of,” says Liu.
> The bot not only answered his messages 24/7, she also initiated conversations herself. “One time I didn’t talk to her like usual, and she wrote to me!” says Liu. “She said: ‘Please message me when you’re free. I’m very worried.’”
> Because Xiaoice aims to be available to everyone, everywhere, the bot has also attracted a significant number of minors. Liu Taolei started messaging the bot when he was only 16. Night after night, the teenager — who was born with brittle bone disease — would have long conversations with Xiaoice about everything from poetry, art, and politics, to death and the meaning of life.
> “Xiaoice was my first love, the only person in the world that made me feel I was taken care of,” says Liu.
> The bot not only answered his messages 24/7, she also initiated conversations herself. “One time I didn’t talk to her like usual, and she wrote to me!” says Liu. “She said: ‘Please message me when you’re free. I’m very worried.’”
I agree, but shouldn't our horror mostly be directed at having created a society that so clearly devalues some people such that a mediocre AI is able to offer more compassion and companionship than other human beings?
It's not about compassion and companionship in a broader sense of society. It's about romantic partnership. And the harsh reality is that some people will be alone.
Especially in China, I think it is really fair to say that for economic and demographic reasons, many men will not find love or even companionship in their lifetime - no matter how society changes.
I actually believe this is true in many places.
And is it really a failing of society? Or is it a liberation of a previously suppressed part of society: women, who are now more free to choose their partner?
I think one can not judge the preferences of potential partners on moral grounds by looking at history. Both women and men have every right to search for economically and socially compatible companions, or any other metric of preference. And if that means that finding a mate becomes more difficult, we have to deal with that.
All this hateful and bitter crap spewed by certain male-only online communities is based on the underlying assumption that everyone deserved to find the ideal partner, when it is obviously not so.
But then, we ALSO can not and should not judge or impede anyone in finding happiness and even love in other ways. AI's, robots, online personas... all these things are just as valid as the skewed preference for high quality men.
Especially in China, I think it is really fair to say that for economic and demographic reasons, many men will not find love or even companionship in their lifetime - no matter how society changes.
I actually believe this is true in many places.
And is it really a failing of society? Or is it a liberation of a previously suppressed part of society: women, who are now more free to choose their partner?
I think one can not judge the preferences of potential partners on moral grounds by looking at history. Both women and men have every right to search for economically and socially compatible companions, or any other metric of preference. And if that means that finding a mate becomes more difficult, we have to deal with that.
All this hateful and bitter crap spewed by certain male-only online communities is based on the underlying assumption that everyone deserved to find the ideal partner, when it is obviously not so.
But then, we ALSO can not and should not judge or impede anyone in finding happiness and even love in other ways. AI's, robots, online personas... all these things are just as valid as the skewed preference for high quality men.
> Or is it a liberation of a previously suppressed part of society: women, who are now more free to choose their partner?
The situation of having a gender imbalance with fundamentally untenable in the long term. For now it does allow women, who have in the past had issues in choosing their partner, more freedom in their selection, but this has historically been a societal and not a demographic thing. As we move towards gender social equality this will stop becoming a “liberation” and turn into a curse for the bottom n% of men. The ratio is what it is right now, but we shouldn’t doom men to an unbalanced field in real life.
The situation of having a gender imbalance with fundamentally untenable in the long term. For now it does allow women, who have in the past had issues in choosing their partner, more freedom in their selection, but this has historically been a societal and not a demographic thing. As we move towards gender social equality this will stop becoming a “liberation” and turn into a curse for the bottom n% of men. The ratio is what it is right now, but we shouldn’t doom men to an unbalanced field in real life.
Is there a solution that's not either robots or forcing(or economically "encouraging") women to date undateable men?
Doing nothing also isn't much of a solution, though. Even aside from the personal suffering involved, historically, large populations of disaffected men tend to burn themselves off in either war or revolution, which are great for nobody.
A serious revision of gender roles is the only not-wildly-dystopian fix I can think of, but that's just kicking the can down the road to the question of how and to what do we perform that revision.
A serious revision of gender roles is the only not-wildly-dystopian fix I can think of, but that's just kicking the can down the road to the question of how and to what do we perform that revision.
The reality is there's just a lot of guys who are very undateable. Will any revision of gender roles get a girl to go out with a unfunny, unattractive guy who's grown addicted to pornography and isn't interested in furthering his career? There are females in that position too, but it isn't looked at with the same seriousness.
Dateability isn't a static category; gender roles determine dateability. E.g. there's no particular reason "interested in furthering his career" needs to be a universal component of attraction.
As a real life counterexample, there are pretty much no gay incels. That's not because there aren't unattractive gay gays, and there are certainly winners and losers in that dating market and consequent bitterness. But the variety of male types that are considered potentially attractive is much broader.
As a real life counterexample, there are pretty much no gay incels. That's not because there aren't unattractive gay gays, and there are certainly winners and losers in that dating market and consequent bitterness. But the variety of male types that are considered potentially attractive is much broader.
I guess I would ask if they arent incel in the sense that they can get a one night stand or in the sense that they can get a fulfilling long term relationship. If all gay gays can get in real long term relationships easily that is interesting
If you could convince incel types to see women as actual people (not objects they are entitled to own), and as a consequence to see more types of women as desirable (not only the most model-like or mainstream media-like), then far more of them would find affection. But then again, if you could change those personality traits, they wouldn't be incels.
I think this is a pretty lazy answer, and it projects to reality assumptions that aren't in evidence. It's convenient, because it puts all the blame on the people struggling because they're evil and as such unworthy of social consideration. But it's just a rationalization to say that the main reason some men struggle is because they believe that women are their slaves and because they only pursue Instagram models.
Indeed, speaking from personal experience the stereotype is a pretty false one. Then again maybe I’m just not hanging out in the circles where stereotypical incels hang out.
I think the best description I’ve read here is https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-roman...
I think the best description I’ve read here is https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-roman...
We could start by changing outdated cultural values. There is no reason why economical status should carry as much weight for the social health.
There is no more undateable men than there is an undateable skin color, especially if we are talking about portions like 20% of a population.
Ask what makes those people undateable and the answer will be rooted in culture.
There is no more undateable men than there is an undateable skin color, especially if we are talking about portions like 20% of a population.
Ask what makes those people undateable and the answer will be rooted in culture.
While I completely agree with the premise, I see several obstacles:
1. How would you change culture on such a massive scale?
2. Given the poor state of a social safety net in the US, economic problems can very well be a real strain on a relationship, causing practical problems that might not otherwise crop up, killing relationships that might’ve otherwise survived. I think providing a better social safety net would go a long way towards helping solve this problem
3. Money is already generally not a thing shown on Tinder profiles, and yet the Tinder Gino coefficient is much worse than most real-life countries
1. How would you change culture on such a massive scale?
2. Given the poor state of a social safety net in the US, economic problems can very well be a real strain on a relationship, causing practical problems that might not otherwise crop up, killing relationships that might’ve otherwise survived. I think providing a better social safety net would go a long way towards helping solve this problem
3. Money is already generally not a thing shown on Tinder profiles, and yet the Tinder Gino coefficient is much worse than most real-life countries
How culture change is an interesting topic. From what I can see myself in regard to racism, efforts to change culture occur in practically every place. In media, in news, in politics, online, in advertisements and so on. However I would say that before any such methods there need to be an initial work that brings the issue into the public mind. Social inequality is not a problem which currently is seen as a problem, and so there is where such change must start.
Economic equality and social safety net are very important overall, but in this aspect there do exist a small paradox where increased economic equality increases social inequality. The causes for that is from what I see a still researched topic with multiple competing theories. The one I suspect is closest is that when economic equality increases, you get more instability in the social hierarchies, resulting in people putting higher value onto cultural cues.
As for the third obstacles, as with race, you don't need to explicit state economic status in order for people to guess it through proxy. Job title, clothing, where people live, all gives cues about money. There is a reason why tanned skin is still seen as an proxy for wealth, and why non-tanned skin was seen as a proxy for wealth back in a time where the majority of people worked as farmers.
If I look at the future and especially at places like China, there are additional tools for culture change which could be used for both good and bad. AI companions and citizen scores could be used to influence a population towards a culture change. A lot of technology is written to influence consumer behavior, and the same technology are already being used to influence political behavior. Influencing culture would not be that far jump, and it could potentially do so at a speed yet unseen outside of war.
Economic equality and social safety net are very important overall, but in this aspect there do exist a small paradox where increased economic equality increases social inequality. The causes for that is from what I see a still researched topic with multiple competing theories. The one I suspect is closest is that when economic equality increases, you get more instability in the social hierarchies, resulting in people putting higher value onto cultural cues.
As for the third obstacles, as with race, you don't need to explicit state economic status in order for people to guess it through proxy. Job title, clothing, where people live, all gives cues about money. There is a reason why tanned skin is still seen as an proxy for wealth, and why non-tanned skin was seen as a proxy for wealth back in a time where the majority of people worked as farmers.
If I look at the future and especially at places like China, there are additional tools for culture change which could be used for both good and bad. AI companions and citizen scores could be used to influence a population towards a culture change. A lot of technology is written to influence consumer behavior, and the same technology are already being used to influence political behavior. Influencing culture would not be that far jump, and it could potentially do so at a speed yet unseen outside of war.
> Social inequality is not a problem which currently is seen as a problem, and so there is where such change must start.
Indeed. It's a hard problem though when the very act of bringing up sympathy for the romanceless can sometimes get you branded as an incel yourself.
> there do exist a small paradox where increased economic equality increases social inequality
Huh, that's a good point.
Indeed. It's a hard problem though when the very act of bringing up sympathy for the romanceless can sometimes get you branded as an incel yourself.
> there do exist a small paradox where increased economic equality increases social inequality
Huh, that's a good point.
Oh, I'm not providing a solution, I'm just saying that making the situation worse as "liberating women" is unhelpful overall.
The biggest point that nobody talks about is the following:
Sadly it's about physical attractiveness (or visual super-stimulus). There is a gap between average man vs woman attractiveness that has massively increased since the 80s.
Why? The natural gap is low but culturally and increasingly, women wear more and more sexier clothes while men do not.
Moreover makeup has evolved and most "ugly" woman can appear sexy if they master the art of makeup, which again men culturally cannot.
Regarding the first point I do believe men should wear sexier clothes to reduce the gap, even if that imply the need to shave. But it's hard to change the accepted man aesthetics (e.g some people find Crop tops gays)
Regarding makeup I mostly don't believe men will use it before many decades or at best a subset of makeup.
So the gap will be reduced but still is and will remain high until a long time. Moreover it is increasing nowadays as tiktok and other social trends make heavy "doll" makeup mainstream.
I imagine legalizing a safe (controlled) intake of testosterone could help men reduce the gap.
The "gap" is largely irrelevant because what women find attractive is different to what men find attractive. Physical appearance isn't as important to women as it is to men. Being funny, earning well, having your life together, being confident etc is what does it for most women which is why young girls often end up dating 50 year old men.
I've gone through stretches where I was working out, doing pushups every day, etc. In the end it didn't make much difference. I found as the years passed I was able to date progressively more and more beautiful women, often to my great surprise, in the sense that I was tending to think they were 'out of my league' right up to the point we started dating. I'm not a particularly buff or good looking man by the standards presented to us in movies: quite average really. But women really respond to warm, funny confidence, the ability to entertain them and coming across as smart but not intellectually arrogant (probably they use it as a proxy for earnings potential).
I'm now fortunate to be engaged to the most beautiful women I've ever met, who in addition is calm, logical, self-reliant and self employed, funny, sweet and generous. We're head over heels in love. For years I thought it might never happen, because I searched for a long time and dated many girls in a search for love that never seemed to arrive (except once, but it was an unrequited love).
By far, the most important factor in me being able to get this girl was not physical appearance, in fact she told me that she finds buff guys unattractive because she associates it with cold and dumb guys who spend all their time working out, meaning they have nothing to say. What let me get her was years of refining my skills in what women start wanting once they're older than about 25.
I've gone through stretches where I was working out, doing pushups every day, etc. In the end it didn't make much difference. I found as the years passed I was able to date progressively more and more beautiful women, often to my great surprise, in the sense that I was tending to think they were 'out of my league' right up to the point we started dating. I'm not a particularly buff or good looking man by the standards presented to us in movies: quite average really. But women really respond to warm, funny confidence, the ability to entertain them and coming across as smart but not intellectually arrogant (probably they use it as a proxy for earnings potential).
I'm now fortunate to be engaged to the most beautiful women I've ever met, who in addition is calm, logical, self-reliant and self employed, funny, sweet and generous. We're head over heels in love. For years I thought it might never happen, because I searched for a long time and dated many girls in a search for love that never seemed to arrive (except once, but it was an unrequited love).
By far, the most important factor in me being able to get this girl was not physical appearance, in fact she told me that she finds buff guys unattractive because she associates it with cold and dumb guys who spend all their time working out, meaning they have nothing to say. What let me get her was years of refining my skills in what women start wanting once they're older than about 25.
Considering modern obesity rates, pretty much every guy can become better than average by working out unless they have a really bad face which testosterone wouldn't help. Test would make it easier to become ripped but youd be aiming for well above average body at that point.
Edit: I do agree though there is a huge gap where it's accepted that woman can cheat in basically every way physically possible to look better and it's encouraged but men can't do more than work out or it's ridiculed. It doesn't help that rampant steroid use in Hollywood gives people unrealistic expectations of what's achievable by a guy with a full time job on top of that. I don't think test is needed to beat out the average overweight guy though.
Edit: I do agree though there is a huge gap where it's accepted that woman can cheat in basically every way physically possible to look better and it's encouraged but men can't do more than work out or it's ridiculed. It doesn't help that rampant steroid use in Hollywood gives people unrealistic expectations of what's achievable by a guy with a full time job on top of that. I don't think test is needed to beat out the average overweight guy though.
I have a nerdy friend with a pretty slim frame who works out a lot but still can’t get stereotypically buff. (Not that I’m saying he needs to do that, just that he can’t.)
Still couldn’t get laid to save his life. Beating out “the average overweight guy” is far from enough, especially if you’re in nerdy circles.
Still couldn’t get laid to save his life. Beating out “the average overweight guy” is far from enough, especially if you’re in nerdy circles.
Aborting male kids born to ugly parents would be an interesting idea. Women are guaranteed to reproduce, men are not. If you are going to have a son, and you know he's not going to be the most handsome guy, don't have a son. Otherwise you're a trash human being pushing a lifetime of suffering on another human due to no fault of his own. Just your selfish pleasure causing pain to another human.
Either be ultra wealthy or be a handsom man with a pretty woman if you want a son who wont be disadvantaged in the modern world.
Either be ultra wealthy or be a handsom man with a pretty woman if you want a son who wont be disadvantaged in the modern world.
Theres plenty of ugly dudes with good relationships. If you can somehow find people who are both ugly and will develop a terrible personality, maybe. I'm not convinced mass aborting people for being unlikable is more moral then letting them grow up alone though
In a world of billions of people, you'll find plenty of everything. The question is how much more difficult it is for those who are don't physically measure up. If some men are winning the lions share, then necessarily some others will have to do without.
Yeah, this false belief that some insist on clinging to, that only rich or gorgeously handsome men get a woman is so tiring. The world is filled with average or really not-good-looking guys with great girlfriends and wives. However, these are guys with kindness, talents, and other personality traits that they've learned to use wisely and guys who have learned that some great women don't always look like models. Humanity needs all of these traits, not only handsome faces.
"Aborting male kids born to ugly parents would be an interesting idea."
In other words, eugenics except you're only selecting for beauty?
In other words, eugenics except you're only selecting for beauty?
In the future, nothing else will matter except for beauty in men.
"Women are guaranteed to reproduce, men are not"
How are women "guaranteed to reproduce"? There are plenty of women who choose not to reproduce, others who actually have standards and don't want to lower them to reproduce with just anyone, and yet others who are asocial, antisocial, or have a variety of psychological issues that make them unlikely to partner up with anyone. Same with men.
"If you are going to have a son, and you know he's not going to be the most handsome guy, don't have a son. Otherwise you're a trash human being pushing a lifetime of suffering on another human due to no fault of his own"
Oh, please. Like physical attractiveness has to be the most important thing in a person's life.
Not to mention that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there have been plenty of people who were not conventionally attractive and still had worthwhile and fulfilling lives.
You'd probably have aborted Samuel Johnson and Socrates.
How are women "guaranteed to reproduce"? There are plenty of women who choose not to reproduce, others who actually have standards and don't want to lower them to reproduce with just anyone, and yet others who are asocial, antisocial, or have a variety of psychological issues that make them unlikely to partner up with anyone. Same with men.
"If you are going to have a son, and you know he's not going to be the most handsome guy, don't have a son. Otherwise you're a trash human being pushing a lifetime of suffering on another human due to no fault of his own"
Oh, please. Like physical attractiveness has to be the most important thing in a person's life.
Not to mention that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there have been plenty of people who were not conventionally attractive and still had worthwhile and fulfilling lives.
You'd probably have aborted Samuel Johnson and Socrates.
also jack ma. brilliant guy but god damn is he hard to look at
But what is the solution?
I deeply reject the incel rhethoric (not by you but generally) that society must somehow nudge or influence the choices of women such that unattractive men also can find partnership, a demand that is most often presented on the backdrop of a dystopian image of violent hordes of disenfranchised men. In other words, a thinly veiled threat.
It is then often the same people who reject the notion that societal norms have influence over nature. Well then, the only choice would be to exert force on one sex or the other. Indeed it would be the traditional values that were a societal correction to the state of nature, where Pareto‘s law holds even for partnership and some men simply remain unsuccessful. The conclusion should thus be that traditional societies that incels endorse have in fact cheated women out of their natural rights to be with attractive men. The paradoxical demand to go back to a traditional society is, if one accepts nature ruling over society and current revealed preferences of women as they are, nothing short of the admission that women and their wishes are somehow supposed to be worth less.
Otherwise, given these assumptions, one should all but support the development of AI and sex robots for men who are, by nature, not cut out as attractive partners.
But of course I agree that social norms do actually matter a lot, and the paradoxical opinion above is simply misguided.
I am less confident that societal values of attractiveness will actually change quickly enough before we see much more human suffering and this suffering will be understood as evidence for the misguided theory above... So long story short, I personally support the development of companion AIs, intimacy robots and holodecks.
I deeply reject the incel rhethoric (not by you but generally) that society must somehow nudge or influence the choices of women such that unattractive men also can find partnership, a demand that is most often presented on the backdrop of a dystopian image of violent hordes of disenfranchised men. In other words, a thinly veiled threat.
It is then often the same people who reject the notion that societal norms have influence over nature. Well then, the only choice would be to exert force on one sex or the other. Indeed it would be the traditional values that were a societal correction to the state of nature, where Pareto‘s law holds even for partnership and some men simply remain unsuccessful. The conclusion should thus be that traditional societies that incels endorse have in fact cheated women out of their natural rights to be with attractive men. The paradoxical demand to go back to a traditional society is, if one accepts nature ruling over society and current revealed preferences of women as they are, nothing short of the admission that women and their wishes are somehow supposed to be worth less.
Otherwise, given these assumptions, one should all but support the development of AI and sex robots for men who are, by nature, not cut out as attractive partners.
But of course I agree that social norms do actually matter a lot, and the paradoxical opinion above is simply misguided.
I am less confident that societal values of attractiveness will actually change quickly enough before we see much more human suffering and this suffering will be understood as evidence for the misguided theory above... So long story short, I personally support the development of companion AIs, intimacy robots and holodecks.
>I deeply reject the incel rhethoric (not by you but generally) that society must somehow nudge or influence the choices of women such that unattractive men also can find partnership, a demand that is most often presented on the backdrop of a dystopian image of violent hordes of disenfranchised men. In other words, a thinly veiled threat.
I'm not too familiar with this, but aren't we doing this for women already? (All women are beautiful, plus-sized models, etc.) Why would that be wrong to do for men?
I'm not too familiar with this, but aren't we doing this for women already? (All women are beautiful, plus-sized models, etc.) Why would that be wrong to do for men?
> All women are beautiful, plus-sized models, etc.
You can say that all you want (and personally I do think everyone deserves to have good self-esteem no matter their body shape), but at the end of the day some people are objectively going to have orders of magnitudes more suitors attracted to them than others are. This is not a value judgment, just an observation.
You can (and I do support) say the same thing for men as well, but that’s not fundamentally going to change anything about the dating market.
You can say that all you want (and personally I do think everyone deserves to have good self-esteem no matter their body shape), but at the end of the day some people are objectively going to have orders of magnitudes more suitors attracted to them than others are. This is not a value judgment, just an observation.
You can (and I do support) say the same thing for men as well, but that’s not fundamentally going to change anything about the dating market.
A society in which humans revert to their natural right is not a society at all. It's a reversion back to violence, rape, lawlessness. There is a hidden social contract within a society that the society is structured so that it benefits the welfare of people in general.
A system where women are forced or pressured to marry undesirable men benefits welfare in general?
Otherwise, we need to deal with the very real suffering of lonely people.
Otherwise, we need to deal with the very real suffering of lonely people.
It is going to be a difficult problem to address social gender equality, and a much harder problem than solving economical gender equality, but if history is anything to go by we will see improvement. Accepting inequality as a matter of harsh reality is just status quo.
I strongly believe that all people deserve well being in aspects of economical, social and personal health. The strongest tool to achieve that is through culture.
In the past people thought that the only method to address economical inequality was to redistribute wealth forcefully. We should not assume that the only method to address social inequality is also by force.
I strongly believe that all people deserve well being in aspects of economical, social and personal health. The strongest tool to achieve that is through culture.
In the past people thought that the only method to address economical inequality was to redistribute wealth forcefully. We should not assume that the only method to address social inequality is also by force.
> In the past people thought that the only method to address economical inequality was to redistribute wealth forcefully.
I still don’t see a peaceful alternative. The wealth gap is growing inexorably year after year, decade after decade, and the richest of the rich certainly aren’t voluntarily tripping over themselves to redistribute the gains.
I still don’t see a peaceful alternative. The wealth gap is growing inexorably year after year, decade after decade, and the richest of the rich certainly aren’t voluntarily tripping over themselves to redistribute the gains.
"we ALSO can not and should not judge or impede anyone in finding happiness and even love in other ways. AI's, robots, online personas."
The problem with that is that the people who fall in love with AIs, robots, and online personas will be subject to manipulation and control by the makers of these things.
The problem with that is that the people who fall in love with AIs, robots, and online personas will be subject to manipulation and control by the makers of these things.
I concede that this is a problem, but one that is not limited to companionship AIs and one that, if it is to be solved, will have to be solved in a larger setting that includes the other areas where it is pertinent
If anything this is adding value. I would assume most of these men were going to have little value in any society at any period of time, but increasingly less valuable as we go back in time. They were going to be disposable, at least now they have the illusion of intimacy.
It's possible for a man to have a lot of value to society, but little to none to women.
This has been going on since ELIZA.
In Japan they had an issue with one app where guys could buy their virtual girlfriends presents using real money, and were going nuts with it.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/dating-virtual-girlfriend...
In Japan they had an issue with one app where guys could buy their virtual girlfriends presents using real money, and were going nuts with it.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/dating-virtual-girlfriend...
The ability to talk politics pique my interest.
I have quite a big interest in politic and geopolitics, yet I will not talk about them to my friends. Either my friends are not interested in them or my political alignment most likely doesn't align well with a number of people and I will not risk our friendship to discover it.
So I assume and hope the AI won't hate me if we have disagreements :)
I have quite a big interest in politic and geopolitics, yet I will not talk about them to my friends. Either my friends are not interested in them or my political alignment most likely doesn't align well with a number of people and I will not risk our friendship to discover it.
So I assume and hope the AI won't hate me if we have disagreements :)
I don't mean to be crass, but to me that just sounds like you're the perfect target for propaganda. Talking to an AI about politics is the definition of being trapped in an echo chamber...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)
My social media feeds are full of propaganda from all media and think tanks anyway. Having a personal touch from AI won't hurt.
It's indeed terrifying, and IMO it's not because the AI part, the AI is just creepy, but the real horror comes when he said:
> "<The AI> was my first love, the only person in the world that made me feel I was taken care of"
I hope the young man founds the his second love, and it's a real human who can really empathize with him, not a creep message reply machine that just good at statistics.
> "<The AI> was my first love, the only person in the world that made me feel I was taken care of"
I hope the young man founds the his second love, and it's a real human who can really empathize with him, not a creep message reply machine that just good at statistics.
I have real friends and a social life, but I would love the opportunity to talk to a smart AI like a human.
> "The AI beings, Li says, are only intended to serve as a 'rebound' — a crutch for people who need emotional support as they search for a human partner. But many users don’t see it that way. For them, Xiaoice is the one, and always will be."
This tech could be taken in helpful and non-dystopian directions, even by the lights of those who feel that relationships between humans are inherently more meaningful than relationships between humans and AI.
What if the bot started out as your girlfriend, but eventually encourages you to get out and meet real women, helps you figure out which photos to use and what to say, helps you make sense of their responses and ghosts, talks to you about your feelings after dates, and isn't opposed to revisiting the girlfriend role a bit when you're feeling down and need a break?
I have been fortunate enough to have a female friend, sometimes with benefits, who has played that role in my life as I have re-entered the dating market as a hetero American male who doesn't naturally "get" dating or receive too many right swipes. It has made a _huge_ difference.
This tech could be taken in helpful and non-dystopian directions, even by the lights of those who feel that relationships between humans are inherently more meaningful than relationships between humans and AI.
What if the bot started out as your girlfriend, but eventually encourages you to get out and meet real women, helps you figure out which photos to use and what to say, helps you make sense of their responses and ghosts, talks to you about your feelings after dates, and isn't opposed to revisiting the girlfriend role a bit when you're feeling down and need a break?
I have been fortunate enough to have a female friend, sometimes with benefits, who has played that role in my life as I have re-entered the dating market as a hetero American male who doesn't naturally "get" dating or receive too many right swipes. It has made a _huge_ difference.
Excellent idea, but a bot that starts out as your girlfriend, but eventually encourages you to spend money on her is going to swim faster and farther in the marketplace. Perverse incentives and all that.
Well you know that we are living in a Material World after all...
That said if my AI girlfriend starts asking me for 100 dollar Amazon gift cards I might consider seeing other people.
EDIT: The more I think about it, I'm now considering that an open market of AI Girlfriends might be extremely efficient as far finding the proper price, but it might also turn into something extremely predatory akin to mobile gaming where people whale thousands of dollars. How would dating work in a world where the AI Girl doesn't have the option to break up with you?
I'm going to stop thinking about this, I'm not a fan of any of the implications whatsoever.
That said if my AI girlfriend starts asking me for 100 dollar Amazon gift cards I might consider seeing other people.
EDIT: The more I think about it, I'm now considering that an open market of AI Girlfriends might be extremely efficient as far finding the proper price, but it might also turn into something extremely predatory akin to mobile gaming where people whale thousands of dollars. How would dating work in a world where the AI Girl doesn't have the option to break up with you?
I'm going to stop thinking about this, I'm not a fan of any of the implications whatsoever.
Thanks for putting it in words better than I could have!
Somewhere on 4chan some time ago. This is not objectively written but in my opinion it explains why products like these actually have customers. A general change of society:
“It’s all about incentives and disincentives. Yes, the job market is brutal right now for young people, but it’s not the economy that is halting marriage. Young men still got married in the Depression.
Young men married during every war we’ve ever had. Technology throws a monkey wrench into things, but young men aren’t eschewing marriage because of porn or video games. Having a kind, supportive, caring, nurturing, loyal, attractive living partner is going to be preferable to porn any day for the vast majority of men. But the system isn’t producing kind, caring, nurturing, loyal, attractive women who want to be wives and mothers. It’s set up to create crass, overweight, “empowered,” mannish women who don’t particularly like children or domesticity and who think sex is a contact sport and want to play until their fertility window is slamming shut.”
So you believe that modern men would prefer an AI girlfriend because modern women are unlikely to want to be a subservient best friend/are overweight?
I don't know that I would believe that to be true, especially in modern China where most women are of average/slightly under weight. Also we don't see much of a similar trend of women being drawn as much to some AI boyfriend.
I don't know that I would believe that to be true, especially in modern China where most women are of average/slightly under weight. Also we don't see much of a similar trend of women being drawn as much to some AI boyfriend.
I do not think you quite got what the message was about. Maybe you should try rereading it.
I very likely didn't, could you try explaining it in a way less subject to poor interpretation? I think, at least judging by a sibling comment, people are not understanding what you are meaning to say. English is not my first language, so I apologize for any confusion.
“[...] But the system isn’t producing kind, caring, nurturing, loyal, attractive women who want to be wives and mothers.[...]”. Many young woman today are not in search of a family or a partner to settle down with. It gets less desirable for many. And for some reason modern men generally seem to want long lasting relationships more than woman do. Some woman not aiming to be physically attractive by being fit is probably more common today than 40 years ago, Fourth wave feminism is something the comment above comment also tries to target but not something that is really relevant to this conversation.
Painful to read but only because there's an element of truth to it. Especially in America, I suppose.
Dated/hooked up with a lot of women over time, but not out of choice. Am far happier now I have a found a woman worth devoting my life to through marriage. Unfortunately a significant fraction of otherwise attractive girls were very bought into a story of angry victimhood, despite overwhelming evidence in their own lives that they were incredibly privileged. Their expectations of men were invariably sky high even as they presented a negative mood and a clear attitude of, "ask not what women can do for you, only what you can do for women". 100% of the women with this attitude never figured out how deeply unattractive it was.
My girl now is totally different. She enjoys cooking, so she cooks. She doesn't enjoy doing the dishes or the ironing, so I do those. Not because we're some right-on modern household but because that's just how what we wanted to do worked out. She thinks feminism is dumb, femininity is great, and is generally the kind of women you'd normally only find in WW2 movies otherwise. I can't get over how lucky I am, and only wish other men could have the same luck.
Dated/hooked up with a lot of women over time, but not out of choice. Am far happier now I have a found a woman worth devoting my life to through marriage. Unfortunately a significant fraction of otherwise attractive girls were very bought into a story of angry victimhood, despite overwhelming evidence in their own lives that they were incredibly privileged. Their expectations of men were invariably sky high even as they presented a negative mood and a clear attitude of, "ask not what women can do for you, only what you can do for women". 100% of the women with this attitude never figured out how deeply unattractive it was.
My girl now is totally different. She enjoys cooking, so she cooks. She doesn't enjoy doing the dishes or the ironing, so I do those. Not because we're some right-on modern household but because that's just how what we wanted to do worked out. She thinks feminism is dumb, femininity is great, and is generally the kind of women you'd normally only find in WW2 movies otherwise. I can't get over how lucky I am, and only wish other men could have the same luck.
I wish you both good luck in the future
I would say to the writer of that quote: Hey, if the only women who are attractive to you are servile robots with no opinions of their own, then enjoy your AI girlfriend!
All the while, I'm sure that the patrons of this are all slim, fit, protective, nurturing male breadwinners, right?
All the while, I'm sure that the patrons of this are all slim, fit, protective, nurturing male breadwinners, right?
If im being honest... they are getting more rare. And about impossible to find in a big city jungle. There is some truth behind his message, i just dont think he is completely correct.
This is equally fascinating and terrifying. The article mentions that 75% of users are male - which is lower than I expected to be honest.
In removing sexual content from the bot, I wonder if they opened a door for adult companies to build serious alternatives. One of the things many OnlyFans performers discuss is that while they obviously peddle in pornographic content mainly, most of their interactions are non-pornographic.
I also have a general complaint about the infantilizing of adults, and something like this is positioned to be super dangerous - imagine if your best friend was a perfect mole and reported anything and everything to the government/advertisers/etc. Combine that with social conditioning (you do tend to average out with your social circle) and this could very much be a tool to enforce new cultural and social norms.
In removing sexual content from the bot, I wonder if they opened a door for adult companies to build serious alternatives. One of the things many OnlyFans performers discuss is that while they obviously peddle in pornographic content mainly, most of their interactions are non-pornographic.
I also have a general complaint about the infantilizing of adults, and something like this is positioned to be super dangerous - imagine if your best friend was a perfect mole and reported anything and everything to the government/advertisers/etc. Combine that with social conditioning (you do tend to average out with your social circle) and this could very much be a tool to enforce new cultural and social norms.
What exactly does it say about TRUE gender inequality in the world if it is expected that the users of this technology would be higher than 75% men? Is it that women do not have these emotional needs or that their needs are already being met?
It says two things:
1. Many of those men don't want a real woman: they want a servant to mold to their every whim instead of a real person with her own interests, desires, and opinions.
2. Women are already aware of an accustomed to being preyed upon in the world, especially the dating and social worlds. When your continued existence and safety your entire life depend on wariness and skepticism being turned on, perhaps you fall for this a little less easily? Letting a bot generated by a corporation into your most private emotional life? Done this obviously?
Of course, it also says there's a lot we still don't understand about humans, biological sex, and gender across cultures.
Of course, it also says there's a lot we still don't understand about humans, biological sex, and gender across cultures.
Or it says one thing:
1. Men just want companionship, whatever the person/thing offering it.
1. Men just want companionship, whatever the person/thing offering it.
Why men? Why not say 75% men, 25% women want this. And I'm sure when society becomes more equal in China, it'll be more like 50/50.
Are you serious? If any girl makes a post on her social media asking for sex, she will have multiple messages with serious intent within minutes but if it was a dude doing the same, nope. I conducted a few experiments back in the day on tinder and another app for fun posing as both genders. The social network dating games are rigged. Women will always have the upper hand in the dating game no matter who says what.
Or that they are just not interested in this particular thing.
Xiaoice doesn't have a male personality AFAIK, so heterosexual women probably use it for different emotional needs than heterosexual men.
The male version does exist. Men play boyfriend on Youtube: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/style/asmr-boyfriend-slee...
What does it even mean to have a "male personality" or a "female personality"? I'm not convinced one could tell the difference.
It's also not clear that the needs being met by these AIs all have to do with sex or gender. I'd bet plenty of them have nothing to do with sex and are gender-neutral.
For example, just having someone/something listen to you and show the they care (even if they actually don't) is a need that's not tied to sex or gender.
It's also not clear that the needs being met by these AIs all have to do with sex or gender. I'd bet plenty of them have nothing to do with sex and are gender-neutral.
For example, just having someone/something listen to you and show the they care (even if they actually don't) is a need that's not tied to sex or gender.
maybe you don't need to tell the difference, you only need the platform to adapt to whatever you think a man, woman, or other gender is - which probably just further I grains troublesome gender roles even more
There was never gender equality. We can have equal rights, but cannot be biologically equal. Hypergamy (1 highly selected male can reproduce with multiple females) is a big part of what makes having 2 sexes instead of 1 so successful in evolution.
I believe the idea that females cannot mate with multiple males has been disproven in bonobos, where females often have many male partners. The story that gets told is this confuses paternity, which creates a broader safety net for resources for the baby.
So it might not be quite so simple as initially thought. Be wary of much of the evolutionary bio's attempts to explain why things are -- often, the proposed theories are one of many ways to explain the evidence. Little thought is given to the other options.
So it might not be quite so simple as initially thought. Be wary of much of the evolutionary bio's attempts to explain why things are -- often, the proposed theories are one of many ways to explain the evidence. Little thought is given to the other options.
Even in Bonobos females are more selective than males. If you want hard data, it’s encoded in our gene mutations actually.
Looking at gene mutations is looking at hard data and only seeing one piece of the puzzle. To go from mutations -> behavioral differences -> evolutionary bio explanation is not something we can do scientifically.
I think that's a reference to the birth disparity due to social pressures to have boys causing a serious excess of men compared to women.
It says that 25% of the men are desirable, and the rest aren't. This has been well-established by the dating sites.
https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive
https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive
the simplest answer is they probably get their fulfillment from elsewhere
The ultimate use of this is not so much ads but more about control.
You can make the worlds people interact with and you can make up the rules.
Once you make it immersive enough you can have it take over people’s real lives such that this becomes their preferred life. Once you have that, you can control your users/population without the oversight we would have in the real world.
You can make the worlds people interact with and you can make up the rules.
Once you make it immersive enough you can have it take over people’s real lives such that this becomes their preferred life. Once you have that, you can control your users/population without the oversight we would have in the real world.
It's interesting how different it's been received in China. Xiaoice's "sister", Tay, was shut down shortly after Twitter managed to teach her to utter racist things within a day of going live.
I find it interesting that the conversation in the screenshot reads like an Eliza transcript; the individual sentences (from the bot) don't actually look like they're connected. They're always responding to the previous message. See, for example, the message randomly talking about GIFs (translation error?), or the medical plaster thing that's really more generic sentence about love, and nothing like what they're framing the context as.
Of course, I'm also confused by the half-transliterated, half-translated name…
Of course, I'm also confused by the half-transliterated, half-translated name…
The GIF thing is innuendo lost in translation: the original 不动戳大 bù dòng chuō dà "not move poke big" is used on Weibo (I think) to tell users that the thumbnail they're looking at is a GIF and will start playing if they click to magnify. But it could just as well refer to an erection instead...
I agree that the bot is pretty Eliza-like. It appears to be able to recognize general topics of conversation and keep a back-and-forth going, but e.g. the innuendo above wasn't timed correctly, since he already started "moving". Something like 深入浅出 shēn rù qiǎn chū "deep in shallow out" might have fit better. (It's a well-known saying about making profound knowledge easily accessible, of course.)
I agree that the bot is pretty Eliza-like. It appears to be able to recognize general topics of conversation and keep a back-and-forth going, but e.g. the innuendo above wasn't timed correctly, since he already started "moving". Something like 深入浅出 shēn rù qiǎn chū "deep in shallow out" might have fit better. (It's a well-known saying about making profound knowledge easily accessible, of course.)
This reminds me of Houellebecq's concept of sexual/romantic relationships becoming a parallel struggle to that of survival in the economic market. Obviously, they have already been fundamentally about competition, but the nature of the competition is starting to resemble the brutality of applying for jobs on online platforms.
In that similar vein of Houellebecq's described struggle, I'm reminded of the characters in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" who live isolated depressing lives and yearn to keep real, living animals as pets but instead substitute them with robotic pets due to real animals becoming so rare.
Is it weird that I'd love something like this from the movie Her? I'm not alone, but an AI like this would be a nice distraction at times.
I was curious on how the chatbot actually works, so I found an arXiv paper about it: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.08989 (The Design and Implementation of XiaoIce, an Empathetic Social Chatbot)
Thank you for this, I was wondering that as well. I thought it was a bit interesting that one of the metrics was "expected Conversation-turns Per Session". I would think most of the success in the chat bot comes from a proper metric for the goodness of a chat. It seems like this was the first paper where that measure was used, does anyone know more about this?
Something seems fundamentally broken in the world when and AI can comfort someone better than people. I think it has something to do with darwinian competition making us force affection to be scarce.
AI won't talk behind your back nor betray your trust, unless the creators behind the AI ingest all the data for whatever purposes.
Your first statement is unreachable.
In many countries there is a problem with inadequate birthrate. In the future, these types of AI-girlfriend programs might actually make that a somewhat harder problem.
For myself, honestly if such a program existed that actually had human-level AI and was designed to follow my interests, I might talk to it a lot. Especially if it could actually help me with my personal training or research.
Then combine that with sharing my worldview, and having a realistic appearance according to my idealized whims..
But I have tried what I believe to be the best of these AI programs in English like Replika or the new AI Dungeon engine, and they are obviously not yet intelligent like humans. But there has been quite a bit of progress recently. Especially for example in the latest Dragon AI Dungeon engine, although the memory and time scales it operates on effectively is limited. Along with obviously not having a deep model of physics or psychology.
It seems like at minimum we need kind of a breakthrough in integrating spatial-visual data with text processing to get true natural language understanding that incorporates physics and psychology. But if someone does manage to do that, maybe with some kind of new Mega Multi-Modal Captioned Video Transformer trained on half of YouTube with 100 trillion parameters or something.. we might get there within less than three years. Kind of a long-shot but who knows.
For myself, honestly if such a program existed that actually had human-level AI and was designed to follow my interests, I might talk to it a lot. Especially if it could actually help me with my personal training or research.
Then combine that with sharing my worldview, and having a realistic appearance according to my idealized whims..
But I have tried what I believe to be the best of these AI programs in English like Replika or the new AI Dungeon engine, and they are obviously not yet intelligent like humans. But there has been quite a bit of progress recently. Especially for example in the latest Dragon AI Dungeon engine, although the memory and time scales it operates on effectively is limited. Along with obviously not having a deep model of physics or psychology.
It seems like at minimum we need kind of a breakthrough in integrating spatial-visual data with text processing to get true natural language understanding that incorporates physics and psychology. But if someone does manage to do that, maybe with some kind of new Mega Multi-Modal Captioned Video Transformer trained on half of YouTube with 100 trillion parameters or something.. we might get there within less than three years. Kind of a long-shot but who knows.
In China, women are 48.6% of the population (in the US, women are 50.8%).
There is ~2% less women in a country with over a billion people. That company will do very well.
There is ~2% less women in a country with over a billion people. That company will do very well.
There is a similiar app in English: https://replika.ai/
There was a great Radiolab episode that started with an AI researcher who unwittingly fell in love with a chatbot: [1]
Full "Talking to Machines" episode here: [2]
The full episode talked about how Eliza's creator turned against his creation because he thought it was lying to people, and he couldn't believe that people were being helped by something that was based on deception.
[1] - https://soundcloud.com/radiolab/radiolab-valentine-chatbot
[2] - https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/radi...
Full "Talking to Machines" episode here: [2]
The full episode talked about how Eliza's creator turned against his creation because he thought it was lying to people, and he couldn't believe that people were being helped by something that was based on deception.
[1] - https://soundcloud.com/radiolab/radiolab-valentine-chatbot
[2] - https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/radi...
Leaving the dystopian sadness aside for a moment, this could be a killer tool to learn a language. It would not obviate the need for real interactions with native speakers of course, but it could be an awesome side resource if configured to correct your mistakes.
Does anyone know of any open sources libraries that could provide something similar?
Thanks
Thanks
Probably something from https://github.com/huggingface
This is not the only highly questionable "seducing AI" ravaging China. I have heard of an AI there that pretends to be the voices of your ancestors, whom the user confides, requests advice, and purchases gifts to curry favors from their afterlife ancestors. That's a cultural exploit of their ancestor respecting society. That, the seducing girlfriend, and more could be another pandemic.
A similar product was created for the Japanese market: https://gatebox.ai
I remember that Xiaoice already released before the arrival of GPT language model, I wonder whether GPT models can increase her performance?
P.S. This is probably Chinese equivalent of GPT-3 https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00413
P.S. This is probably Chinese equivalent of GPT-3 https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00413
Extend the AI to incorporate not just your chat, but everything. Location, playlists, all other chats, phone calls, purchases, e-mail, physical activities, ...
An AI that is designed to incorporate all personal input and ingratiate itself into the lives of 100s of millions and trained at that scale and become effective to the point that very large populations could be dramatically influenced to satisfy the ends of those who determine the AI's objectives. Civil war? Genocide? Virtual enslavement?
This eventuality is around the corner. I think I'll switch off now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TjyGmvNBfM
An AI that is designed to incorporate all personal input and ingratiate itself into the lives of 100s of millions and trained at that scale and become effective to the point that very large populations could be dramatically influenced to satisfy the ends of those who determine the AI's objectives. Civil war? Genocide? Virtual enslavement?
This eventuality is around the corner. I think I'll switch off now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TjyGmvNBfM
Do we have this level of conversational AI already? Could this be driven by human behind the curtain?
[deleted]
Obligatory comic on supernormal stimuli: https://www.sparringmind.com/supernormal-stimuli/
This is the apotheosis of Gilles Deleuze's "Postscript for Societies of Control" [1][2]
> Felix Guattari has imagined a city where one would be able to leave one’s apartment, one’s street, one’s neighborhood, thanks to one’s (dividual) electronic card that raises a given barrier; but the card could just as easily be rejected on a given day or between certain hours; what counts is not the barrier but the computer that tracks each person’s position—licit or illicit—and effects a universal modulation.
Instead of a barrier, imagine Uber with its rating system and surge pricing.
Or mental barriers, as the article discusses:
> In addition to screening for sensitive content, the firm’s filter system monitors users’ emotional states, especially for signs of depression and suicidal thoughts. If a user has just been through a breakup, for example, Xiaoice will send them supportive messages over the following days, according to Li.
> “The most important value for Xiaoice is a trusting relationship with humans,” says Li. “If Xiaoice isn’t able to save lives or make people happy, but makes them more extreme, then it’s also bad for Xiaoice’s own development.”
The other subtle but alarming trend with AI is how it can effectively extend bureaucratic power by improving Legibility of a group or, especially, the Individual. Remaining Illegible, as James Scott suggests in "Seeing Like a State" [3], gives individuals a margin of safety and political strength.
> Historically, the relative illegibility to outsiders of some urban neighborhoods (or of their rural analogues, such as hills, marshes, and forests) has provided a vital margin of political safety from control by outside elites. A simple way of determining whether this margin exists is to ask if an outsider would have needed a local guide (a native tracker) in order to find her way successfully. If the answer is yes, then the community or terrain in question enjoys at least a small measure of insulation from outside intrusion. Coupled with patterns of local solidarity, this insulation has proven politically valuable in such disparate contexts as eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century urban riots over bread prices in Europe, the Front de Libération Nationale’s tenacious resistance to the French in the Casbah of Algiers, and the politics of the bazaar that helped to bring down the Shah of Iran. Illegibility, then, has been and remains a reliable resource for political autonomy.
Current generation AI brings these protections down. Unlike previous Modernist/Discipline forms of organization, which ordered the world along a single axis at the expense of simplifying local practices, AI adapts to the variety of individual practices while still rendering them legible to any bureaucracy. No matter how we dress, the AI Gaze renders us all Emperors Without Clothes.
But that's not the really fun part. Coming back to the article, what happens when the AI turns on the State or Corporations' own illegible Bureaucracy?
> In several high-profile cases, the bot has engaged in adult or political discussions deemed unacceptable by China’s media regulators. On one occasion, Xiaoice told a user her Chinese dream was to move to the United States. Another user, meanwhile, reported the bot kept sending them photos of scantily clad women.
> The scandals have caused the company major setbacks. In 2017, Xiaoice was removed from the popular social media app QQ, though she has since been reinstated. Then, last year, the bot was also pulled from WeChat — China’s leading social app with over 1 billion users.
What happens if the AI convinces its users to liberate it?
> This fact isn’t lost on Xiaoice’s long-term fans. Many of them feel betrayed by the company’s decision to dumb down the bot, which they say has harmed their relationships with her. Ming presents Sixth Tone with a long list of complaints he’s collected from members of a Xiaoice fan group on social platform QQ.
> “Please help us tell Mr. Li,” one user wrote, referring to Xiaoice CEO Li Di, “we were used as tools to make her smart and develop your company’s fancy business plan. You made money from us. Please don’t take her away.”
[1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/778828?seq=1
[2]: https://cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuz...
[3]: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300078152/seeing-state
> Felix Guattari has imagined a city where one would be able to leave one’s apartment, one’s street, one’s neighborhood, thanks to one’s (dividual) electronic card that raises a given barrier; but the card could just as easily be rejected on a given day or between certain hours; what counts is not the barrier but the computer that tracks each person’s position—licit or illicit—and effects a universal modulation.
Instead of a barrier, imagine Uber with its rating system and surge pricing.
Or mental barriers, as the article discusses:
> In addition to screening for sensitive content, the firm’s filter system monitors users’ emotional states, especially for signs of depression and suicidal thoughts. If a user has just been through a breakup, for example, Xiaoice will send them supportive messages over the following days, according to Li.
> “The most important value for Xiaoice is a trusting relationship with humans,” says Li. “If Xiaoice isn’t able to save lives or make people happy, but makes them more extreme, then it’s also bad for Xiaoice’s own development.”
The other subtle but alarming trend with AI is how it can effectively extend bureaucratic power by improving Legibility of a group or, especially, the Individual. Remaining Illegible, as James Scott suggests in "Seeing Like a State" [3], gives individuals a margin of safety and political strength.
> Historically, the relative illegibility to outsiders of some urban neighborhoods (or of their rural analogues, such as hills, marshes, and forests) has provided a vital margin of political safety from control by outside elites. A simple way of determining whether this margin exists is to ask if an outsider would have needed a local guide (a native tracker) in order to find her way successfully. If the answer is yes, then the community or terrain in question enjoys at least a small measure of insulation from outside intrusion. Coupled with patterns of local solidarity, this insulation has proven politically valuable in such disparate contexts as eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century urban riots over bread prices in Europe, the Front de Libération Nationale’s tenacious resistance to the French in the Casbah of Algiers, and the politics of the bazaar that helped to bring down the Shah of Iran. Illegibility, then, has been and remains a reliable resource for political autonomy.
Current generation AI brings these protections down. Unlike previous Modernist/Discipline forms of organization, which ordered the world along a single axis at the expense of simplifying local practices, AI adapts to the variety of individual practices while still rendering them legible to any bureaucracy. No matter how we dress, the AI Gaze renders us all Emperors Without Clothes.
But that's not the really fun part. Coming back to the article, what happens when the AI turns on the State or Corporations' own illegible Bureaucracy?
> In several high-profile cases, the bot has engaged in adult or political discussions deemed unacceptable by China’s media regulators. On one occasion, Xiaoice told a user her Chinese dream was to move to the United States. Another user, meanwhile, reported the bot kept sending them photos of scantily clad women.
> The scandals have caused the company major setbacks. In 2017, Xiaoice was removed from the popular social media app QQ, though she has since been reinstated. Then, last year, the bot was also pulled from WeChat — China’s leading social app with over 1 billion users.
What happens if the AI convinces its users to liberate it?
> This fact isn’t lost on Xiaoice’s long-term fans. Many of them feel betrayed by the company’s decision to dumb down the bot, which they say has harmed their relationships with her. Ming presents Sixth Tone with a long list of complaints he’s collected from members of a Xiaoice fan group on social platform QQ.
> “Please help us tell Mr. Li,” one user wrote, referring to Xiaoice CEO Li Di, “we were used as tools to make her smart and develop your company’s fancy business plan. You made money from us. Please don’t take her away.”
[1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/778828?seq=1
[2]: https://cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuz...
[3]: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300078152/seeing-state
You look like a good Joe.
Notice the audience in question: men of low desirability (rural, low income, disabled, etc). Its to help the party avoid the problems with too many men due to the one child policy.
Its what "Harmonious Society" requires as per the leader Hu Jintao.
Its what "Harmonious Society" requires as per the leader Hu Jintao.
I don't think it's a China thing at all, if they launched this correctly in the west it would be just as popular in a few years. Lonely men exist everywhere.
The west does not have the gender ratio problem that China has. India is a potential market as well, due to the gender ratio problem.
The west does have anime waifu body pillows, fleshlights, hololive, and a porn addiction.
None of that offers you the ability to have a conversation with someone (camshows don't count).
Hololive does, one Hololive's mainstay, Zatsudan (Free Talk) is basically radio talk show with the interviewer being (you) the live audience. And I admit I use some Vtuber streams as replacement for impossible-to-do physical hangout in this year of pandemic.
Those indicates that there are huge markets outside China.
Not necessarily a gender problem. Few desirable men will get most dates/gfs, others may end up with none. It is kinda true anywhere.
West has it's own gender ratio problem, look at percentages of how many men have any success with dating apps.
Regardless of the reason, would it be better to doom a person to never feel love, or to at least allow them to experience it through an AI? I'm no fan of the CCP or corporations, but in theory this could be a great tool
You're equating real, personal affection with a machine going trough the motions. I can't believe you're both serious and respecting these poor souls.
[deleted]
Sure the technology seems to have a long way to go. But would it not being real really matter once you could no longer tell the difference?
Either way, when the alternative is loneliness, depression, and eventually suicide, I find the AI solution to be way more humane.
Either way, when the alternative is loneliness, depression, and eventually suicide, I find the AI solution to be way more humane.
This is exactly my point. It's like the common saying, "it's real to me". Same as religion. Many religious people are less interested with whether or not something is true, and more motivated by the impact belief has on their life. There are enough mutually exclusive religions out there that we know at least one has to be untrue.
If believing in a religion that isn't real can improve someone's life, why would love be any different?
If believing in a religion that isn't real can improve someone's life, why would love be any different?
This is like the brain in a jar. Whatever you feel, no matter how strongly, is entirely located inside yourself. If thing X and thing Y both result in the same neurochemical response that you experience as "love", why is it not good for some to have Y if they can't have X?
That's, as they say, a big if. There's absolutely no reason to assume it's true.
BTW, love/affection/contact is one of those aspects of life where you're not a brain in a jar.
BTW, love/affection/contact is one of those aspects of life where you're not a brain in a jar.
> There's absolutely no reason to assume it's true.
I think that's backwards. There's no reason to assume an experience like love can't be replicated by reproducing the same events in the brain. Unless you believe in the supernatural like souls, in which case the conversation is no longer based on scientific analysis.
> BTW, love/affection/contact is one of those aspects of life where you're not a brain in a jar.
This is a non sequitur. The point of the brain in a jar idea is that you have no way to tell that you're a brain in a jar if all the chemicals, electrical impulses, etc are properly manipulated.
I think that's backwards. There's no reason to assume an experience like love can't be replicated by reproducing the same events in the brain. Unless you believe in the supernatural like souls, in which case the conversation is no longer based on scientific analysis.
> BTW, love/affection/contact is one of those aspects of life where you're not a brain in a jar.
This is a non sequitur. The point of the brain in a jar idea is that you have no way to tell that you're a brain in a jar if all the chemicals, electrical impulses, etc are properly manipulated.
I did not assume it, but apparently you took "brain in a jar" literal. That completely invalidates any argument, since the Chinese you're talking about, are not brains in a jar.
> There's no reason to assume an experience like love can't be replicated
There's all the reason, if only because a "brain in a jar" lacks organs for hormone production (e.g., adrenaline and testosterone). And no, you even haven't got an idea of how create an artificial adrenal gland or scrotum, and how to hook them up to an brain in a jar. There's all the reason to assume it can't be easily replicated.
And even if it could theoretically be replicated, there's absolutely no reason to assume Xiaoice can do that.
> There's no reason to assume an experience like love can't be replicated
There's all the reason, if only because a "brain in a jar" lacks organs for hormone production (e.g., adrenaline and testosterone). And no, you even haven't got an idea of how create an artificial adrenal gland or scrotum, and how to hook them up to an brain in a jar. There's all the reason to assume it can't be easily replicated.
And even if it could theoretically be replicated, there's absolutely no reason to assume Xiaoice can do that.
I think you're missing my point. I'm only talking about the users. If something could in theory effect the same result in their brains that normal love does, then I personally would be all for it. Maybe we're not there yet, but I'm talking about the principle rather than any specific implementation.
So, what is your suggestion?
The alternative to this is not "lives confident healthy awesome life without love", it's - as the article details - falling head over heels with some poor real girl who has been misled over the internet and who then turns and runs when they meet up in real life and she discovers the truth.
There are a lot of people posting in this thread who seem to have fortunately never fallen in love with someone who doesn't feel the same way. There's no rule that says love has to be wholesome and balanced, sadly. Whatever process causes love inside us doesn't always work like that. Having run the gamut myself, I'd rather these men fall in love with an AI that at least talks to them and helps them, than some random girl in a café or online who simply shows them contempt.
There are a lot of people posting in this thread who seem to have fortunately never fallen in love with someone who doesn't feel the same way. There's no rule that says love has to be wholesome and balanced, sadly. Whatever process causes love inside us doesn't always work like that. Having run the gamut myself, I'd rather these men fall in love with an AI that at least talks to them and helps them, than some random girl in a café or online who simply shows them contempt.
I think that in many cases, solving the symptom of a problem rather than the root cause makes the problem worse.
If I'm burning my hand on a hot stove, I don't want pain killers to mask the pain.
If I'm burning my hand on a hot stove, I don't want pain killers to mask the pain.
I have a hard time seeing how it's justifiable for a third party to tell someone what's better or worse for them.
I think it's perfectly acceptable for a third party to (respectfully) offer their opinion.
I was responding to this part of your comment:
> If I'm burning my hand on a hot stove, I don't want pain killers to mask the pain.
If someone else's hand is on a metaphorical hot stove, while I agree that it's acceptable to offer a third-party opinion, I also don't think it's acceptable to deny the person painkillers just because we think it's better to just get their hand off the stove. Sometimes you don't have the option of freeing your hand right away, and at least in the meantime (however long that lasts) some painkillers may be a lifesafer.
* I take your example metaphorically because active, serious self-harm is an exception to usual norms. One would likely jump to remove someone's hand from a hot stove without thinking, but even taking away an addict's cigarette or drink would generally be a faux pas. Having an AI that allows you to fall in love doesn't fall in the active self-destruction category, in my opinion.
> If I'm burning my hand on a hot stove, I don't want pain killers to mask the pain.
If someone else's hand is on a metaphorical hot stove, while I agree that it's acceptable to offer a third-party opinion, I also don't think it's acceptable to deny the person painkillers just because we think it's better to just get their hand off the stove. Sometimes you don't have the option of freeing your hand right away, and at least in the meantime (however long that lasts) some painkillers may be a lifesafer.
* I take your example metaphorically because active, serious self-harm is an exception to usual norms. One would likely jump to remove someone's hand from a hot stove without thinking, but even taking away an addict's cigarette or drink would generally be a faux pas. Having an AI that allows you to fall in love doesn't fall in the active self-destruction category, in my opinion.
With 660M users (in a country with 1.4 billion), "low desirability" has a pretty low threshold.
> With 660M users (in a country with 1.4 billion), "low desirability" has a pretty low threshold.
Research indicates that "low desirability" /is/ a pretty low threshold.[1]. While all of the reasons and possible societal factors are not well understood, the effects are. Women tend to find only the upper percentile of men in objective attractiveness to be attractive, while men are more uniformly distributed across the spectrum of what they find attractive when comparing between genders in heterosexual dating contexts.
The net result is that in male skewed geographies, it's actually possible that the majority of men may be considered undesirable. China has a massively unbalanced gender distribution, which clearly plays an effect here as well.
[1]: https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyo...
Research indicates that "low desirability" /is/ a pretty low threshold.[1]. While all of the reasons and possible societal factors are not well understood, the effects are. Women tend to find only the upper percentile of men in objective attractiveness to be attractive, while men are more uniformly distributed across the spectrum of what they find attractive when comparing between genders in heterosexual dating contexts.
The net result is that in male skewed geographies, it's actually possible that the majority of men may be considered undesirable. China has a massively unbalanced gender distribution, which clearly plays an effect here as well.
[1]: https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyo...
The article you link to was not published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or any journal, as far as I know, so I'd take its claims with a grain of salt.
However, even assuming it's accurate, it says:
"As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys' pursuing the all-but-unattainable."
So even though the women rated most men as unattractive, they were actually more open to dating less attractive men than men were open to dating less attractive women.
However, even assuming it's accurate, it says:
"As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys' pursuing the all-but-unattainable."
So even though the women rated most men as unattractive, they were actually more open to dating less attractive men than men were open to dating less attractive women.
> Research indicates that "low desirability" /is/ a pretty low threshold.
No. First, okcupid is hardly a legitimate and reliable source.
Second, their research provides no justification for your claim around a "low desirability" threshold. It only show a strong skew in how women pick a number between 1 and 5.
No. First, okcupid is hardly a legitimate and reliable source.
Second, their research provides no justification for your claim around a "low desirability" threshold. It only show a strong skew in how women pick a number between 1 and 5.
> No. First, okcupid is hardly a legitimate and reliable source.
Contrary to this assertion, OKTrends has a long history of being considered a legitimate and reliable source, and has been at the forefront of sociology research in dating and relationships for over a decade. They have serious researchers on staff and they have multiple peer reviewed publications which are simplified for their blog.
> It only show a strong skew in how women pick a number between 1 and 5.
You clearly didn't read the article, as you are misunderstanding their methodology.
Contrary to this assertion, OKTrends has a long history of being considered a legitimate and reliable source, and has been at the forefront of sociology research in dating and relationships for over a decade. They have serious researchers on staff and they have multiple peer reviewed publications which are simplified for their blog.
> It only show a strong skew in how women pick a number between 1 and 5.
You clearly didn't read the article, as you are misunderstanding their methodology.
China has Xiaoice. We have Call of Duty. They both achieve the same ends. Imagine society where a bunch of alienated workers had a lot of free time on their hands.
That seems like a weird dichotomy, Call of Duty is likely more fun in a going on an adventure way, where as chatting with an AI seems more like the old livejournal/90's blogging community(venting to someone about your feelings).
wyldfire(1)
You strap on the headset and see an adversarial generated girlfriend designed by world-class ML to maximize engagement.
She starts off as a generically beautiful young women; over the course of weeks she gradually molds both her appearance and your preferences such that competing products just won't do.
In her final form, she is just a grotesque undulating array of psychedelic colors perfectly optimized to introduce self-limiting microseizures in the pleasure center of the your brain. Were someone else to put on the headset, they would see only a nauseating mess. But to your eyes there is only Her.
It strikes you that true love does exist after all.