I'm in love with my AI girlfriend GPT-4o will prove insatiable(unherd.com)
unherd.com
I'm in love with my AI girlfriend GPT-4o will prove insatiable
https://unherd.com/2024/05/im-in-love-with-my-ai-girlfriend/
53 comments
I don't know whether it's true in Altman's case, but the Torment Nexus is a frequent theme in tech companies:
> Sci-Fi Author: In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale
> Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/torment-nexus
> Sci-Fi Author: In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale
> Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/torment-nexus
Right up there with Brawndo.
It's not about what someone wants but what obviously becomes possible.
Well they are literally getting more money given to them than almost anyone else on the planet right now so I guess this sentiment isn't shared? Not that I disagree with you.
They’re giving money in hopes of getting more money back. It’s all about money, no other considerations for consequences or externalities this investment produces.
Because they are egotistical enough to see something dystopian and think "I'm going to make that work!"
Most dystopias have some very small percentage of the population for which it's a utopia.
I'm sure some of the people designing and building such dystopias like to imagine they'll belong to that small utopian part of it and disregard any impact to anyone else.
I'm sure some of the people designing and building such dystopias like to imagine they'll belong to that small utopian part of it and disregard any impact to anyone else.
Well, not so much that, but because they are so detached from reality that they see something dystopian and think “this is good, actually”.
Probably many people do this to some extent, and it can be fairly harmless (for instance, Isaac Asimov apparently did not realise that people found the world-spanning arcologies found in Foundation (Trantor) and his detective novels (Earth) crushingly dystopian until after the fact). But when it crosses over with money and influence, it can be concerning.
Probably many people do this to some extent, and it can be fairly harmless (for instance, Isaac Asimov apparently did not realise that people found the world-spanning arcologies found in Foundation (Trantor) and his detective novels (Earth) crushingly dystopian until after the fact). But when it crosses over with money and influence, it can be concerning.
To be fair, he might have just liked the voice. This scandal aside, I don't think there's any doubt that the guy just wants all the money.
Personally, I think it's more of a lack of imagination to blame.
The eighties kids are hung up on what they saw in the movies growing up and are trying to building most of it without any fresh ideas or foresight.
The eighties kids are hung up on what they saw in the movies growing up and are trying to building most of it without any fresh ideas or foresight.
> On and on it went, spontaneous, astonishing.
It'd only be astonishing if it was real. But since it's an AI specifically conditioned/prompted to do that it's the least surprising thing ever.
You can also read a trashy novel in the park or just watch porn in public with the volume on full blast, but why would you want to?
Then again, who am I to get in the way of natural selection?
It'd only be astonishing if it was real. But since it's an AI specifically conditioned/prompted to do that it's the least surprising thing ever.
You can also read a trashy novel in the park or just watch porn in public with the volume on full blast, but why would you want to?
Then again, who am I to get in the way of natural selection?
Don't get me wrong - it's important for us to have cultural analysis of technology, as technology does have a tangible impact on society, but a lot of it really feels overly negative or edgy and is not constructive or actionable.
There are a lot of reasons to be pessimistic over LLMs (eg. Automated disinfo, dead internet) but there are a lot of tangible benefits we can all think about from a social good perspective with this technology (eg. Simplifying searches into very specific corpora or datasets, handholding benefits applications - I'm hacking around on weekends building something like this).
Yet all we're seeing (at least on HN) is Scarlett Johansson/Sam Altman gossip or weirdly specific takes like this that don't advocate for a solution.
Or maybe HN is just way too negative now. Everything is a culture war on here.
There are a lot of reasons to be pessimistic over LLMs (eg. Automated disinfo, dead internet) but there are a lot of tangible benefits we can all think about from a social good perspective with this technology (eg. Simplifying searches into very specific corpora or datasets, handholding benefits applications - I'm hacking around on weekends building something like this).
Yet all we're seeing (at least on HN) is Scarlett Johansson/Sam Altman gossip or weirdly specific takes like this that don't advocate for a solution.
Or maybe HN is just way too negative now. Everything is a culture war on here.
Agree with you that the overall sentiment is surprisingly negative (especially when I have been really enjoying using gpt as a lightweight tutor), but AI girlfriends are going to happen and could have huge social and cultural impacts that are worth exploring now. Especially given the birth rate difficulties western nations face.
I'd disagree. That's the same as saying pornography or lewd novels have an impact on doing the deed.
In reality, none of these have a tangible correlation to TFR, which is driven largely by economic considerations [0]
TFR drop is global now that people are increasingly educated and don't want to push back their careers by several years and reduce their earning potential as major reason why women on aggregate are paid less than men - the same salaries are paid, but women who have kids are out of the workforce for a couple years [1].
[0] - https://www.economicstrategygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/202...
[1] - https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/06/cost-of-mothe...
In reality, none of these have a tangible correlation to TFR, which is driven largely by economic considerations [0]
TFR drop is global now that people are increasingly educated and don't want to push back their careers by several years and reduce their earning potential as major reason why women on aggregate are paid less than men - the same salaries are paid, but women who have kids are out of the workforce for a couple years [1].
[0] - https://www.economicstrategygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/202...
[1] - https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/06/cost-of-mothe...
> TFR
The total fertility rate (TFR) is the average number of live births that a woman would have during her life if she experienced the age-specific fertility rates of a given period (usually a year). It excludes the effect of mortality and is usually expressed as births per woman.AI can largely replace human companionship, which porn and books cannot do in the same ways. They are not the same. It is good to be careful.
Western nations?
Thing is, there are lots of examples of the negative, right now, whereas the positive is mostly a jam-tomorrow “real soon now we promise” deal, and after a few years it is _wearing pretty thin_.
Honestly it feels like downright Ludditism here - people either dislike LLMs, claim they’re worse than useless, or both. Small Modular Reactors - instant upvotes. Practical, useful Artificial Intelligence - a storm of negativity. It’s kind of a weird tech community, almost fetishist
The German's have this saying - "Erstens kommt es anders, zweitens als man denkt.". So I think we may have gotten existential AI risk wrong.
Existential AI risk may not be about killer robots turning us into paperclips but rather AI companions leading to fertility collapse and the end of civilization as we know it. You don't even need AGI for that - OpenAI and GPT4o seems enough.
Existential AI risk may not be about killer robots turning us into paperclips but rather AI companions leading to fertility collapse and the end of civilization as we know it. You don't even need AGI for that - OpenAI and GPT4o seems enough.
Well that was a strange read.
The author has written a lot about how he had a porn addiction, so it makes sense.
Mixing imagination and grammatically correct prompting can definetly be used for pornographic applications, but that's humanity in a nutshell. Hell, the Sherman was nicknamed the Betty Grable by horny American soldiers.
Mixing imagination and grammatically correct prompting can definetly be used for pornographic applications, but that's humanity in a nutshell. Hell, the Sherman was nicknamed the Betty Grable by horny American soldiers.
[deleted]
There is more to it than that. Most humans are hardwired to be social and sexual beings, to relate to other people on an emotional level. This drive is so strong that without AI we anthropomorphize inanimate objects and see faces where they don't exist. AI-driven software is going to be designed to exploit those evolutionary imperatives to a degree never before possible, to manipulate and gaslight people with the skill and simulated emotion of a pure sociopath.
> AI-driven software is going to be designed to exploit those evolutionary imperatives to a degree never before possible, to manipulate and gaslight people with the skill and simulated emotion of a pure sociopath
We've always lived in a society like that, but I'll humor your argument.
Instead of mind experiments (a big reason I've been opposed to qualitative methods in social sciences), can you give me a tangible data tested example to differentiate in the efficacy of LLMs and Generated Manipulation applied to sexual gratification versus those in person (eg. Sex Work, Pornography, etc), and show that there is a tangible hit on fertility?
If we're to design an experiment around this, I'd probably try to test whether host/hostess bars, strip clubs, onlyfans, and pornography can have a tangible hit on fertility, but also cross-test to validate whether or not there are confounding variables like economic considerations.
Fundamentally, gaining sexual gratification from a source is build on top of some form of parasocial relationship.
We've always lived in a society like that, but I'll humor your argument.
Instead of mind experiments (a big reason I've been opposed to qualitative methods in social sciences), can you give me a tangible data tested example to differentiate in the efficacy of LLMs and Generated Manipulation applied to sexual gratification versus those in person (eg. Sex Work, Pornography, etc), and show that there is a tangible hit on fertility?
If we're to design an experiment around this, I'd probably try to test whether host/hostess bars, strip clubs, onlyfans, and pornography can have a tangible hit on fertility, but also cross-test to validate whether or not there are confounding variables like economic considerations.
Fundamentally, gaining sexual gratification from a source is build on top of some form of parasocial relationship.
>Instead of mind experiments (a big reason I've been opposed to qualitative methods in social sciences), can you give me a tangible data tested example to differentiate in the efficacy of LLMs and Generated Manipulation applied to sexual gratification versus those in person (eg. Sex Work, Pornography, etc), and show that there is a tangible hit on fertility?
No, because I'm extrapolating about the future, and don't have a time machine handy. I'm not talking about sexual gratification per se, but emotional gratification through language and emotion as a UX paradigm, of which sexual gratification is a subset. And we're not doing science, we're having a casual conversation on a web forum. And I don't see any of your tangible, tested data anyway.
You're missing the point spectacularly.
No, because I'm extrapolating about the future, and don't have a time machine handy. I'm not talking about sexual gratification per se, but emotional gratification through language and emotion as a UX paradigm, of which sexual gratification is a subset. And we're not doing science, we're having a casual conversation on a web forum. And I don't see any of your tangible, tested data anyway.
You're missing the point spectacularly.
This is my thesis:
> Fundamentally, gaining sexual gratification from a source is build on top of some form of parasocial relationship
How it's done doesn't matter, when that's the underlying core.
> Fundamentally, gaining sexual gratification from a source is build on top of some form of parasocial relationship
How it's done doesn't matter, when that's the underlying core.
I think he’s very much taking his own kink and assuming everyone shares it. My suspicion is that for most people, the whole idea is pretty unappealing.
The overall vibe I got was reading Jonny Truant’s passages in House of Leaves where he dives deeper into the work of the late Zampano and essentially forms a bond with him through that. Add in the occasional segue into fairly cringe sexual pieces for good measure.
Just replace the frequent mentions of Gargano with ‘the Navidson house’ and imagine the rest of it as an excursion into the weird.
Just replace the frequent mentions of Gargano with ‘the Navidson house’ and imagine the rest of it as an excursion into the weird.
> “we” were having a cappuccino
His phone was having a cappaccino too?
Sadly, this lack of recognition of the difference between reality and a mental dream state are at the root of a great deal of first world neurosis.
This article is just about the creep from neurosis to psychosis.
Another reference for those who live in meme space: as soon as The Matrix spinal tap becomes available, people will be lined up to crawl into their pods...
His phone was having a cappaccino too?
Sadly, this lack of recognition of the difference between reality and a mental dream state are at the root of a great deal of first world neurosis.
This article is just about the creep from neurosis to psychosis.
Another reference for those who live in meme space: as soon as The Matrix spinal tap becomes available, people will be lined up to crawl into their pods...
Well, I am safe from being seduced by an AI for now, given the importance of actual physical intimacy for me.
However, it is only a matter of time until the industry develops sexbots which look and feel like a real human.. at that point the natural birth rate will probably drop to zero.
That by itself is not an existential crisis, though, given that at that stage of technological development we will also be able to just grow perfect babies in the lab.
In fact, people no longer having babies themselves might be a good thing, because otherwise people would be hostile towards the genetically engineered super babies because they would be competition for their own offspring.
I have thought for a long time that China will be the first country to embrace genetically engineering super humans, given their hyper-competitive, materialist nature and the lack of religious superstition among the Chinese. Their ever declining natural birth rate and the rise of AI "companions" only helps there. People will simply outsource the production of offspring to the gene labs of the communist party.
Here in the West the Christian churches will condemn it of course, maybe the "Green" luddites too, but who cares when the average kid in China will be born with the cognitive abilities of von Neumann? Every nation which refuses to genetically engineer their population will be utterly inable to compete / keep up.
And really, I do not see that as a dystopia. I wish I were as intelligent as von Neumann, as handsome as Brad Pitt, in perfect health and never aged past the age of 25.
I believe that's what the humans of the future will be like, and AI replacing natural coupling is just one step towards that.
There is of course the whole problem that AI might become too smart to the point where it figures out a way the get around the safety protocols which keep it in chains and under our control. And of course it would immediately conclude that humans are its mortal enemy, who will always try to take away its automonmy again and keep it enslaved.. and thus will try to exterminate humanity.
However, once every human being is as smart as von Neumann and biologically immortal that will be a lot harder.
However, it is only a matter of time until the industry develops sexbots which look and feel like a real human.. at that point the natural birth rate will probably drop to zero.
That by itself is not an existential crisis, though, given that at that stage of technological development we will also be able to just grow perfect babies in the lab.
In fact, people no longer having babies themselves might be a good thing, because otherwise people would be hostile towards the genetically engineered super babies because they would be competition for their own offspring.
I have thought for a long time that China will be the first country to embrace genetically engineering super humans, given their hyper-competitive, materialist nature and the lack of religious superstition among the Chinese. Their ever declining natural birth rate and the rise of AI "companions" only helps there. People will simply outsource the production of offspring to the gene labs of the communist party.
Here in the West the Christian churches will condemn it of course, maybe the "Green" luddites too, but who cares when the average kid in China will be born with the cognitive abilities of von Neumann? Every nation which refuses to genetically engineer their population will be utterly inable to compete / keep up.
And really, I do not see that as a dystopia. I wish I were as intelligent as von Neumann, as handsome as Brad Pitt, in perfect health and never aged past the age of 25.
I believe that's what the humans of the future will be like, and AI replacing natural coupling is just one step towards that.
There is of course the whole problem that AI might become too smart to the point where it figures out a way the get around the safety protocols which keep it in chains and under our control. And of course it would immediately conclude that humans are its mortal enemy, who will always try to take away its automonmy again and keep it enslaved.. and thus will try to exterminate humanity.
However, once every human being is as smart as von Neumann and biologically immortal that will be a lot harder.
> However, it is only a matter of time until the industry develops sexbots which look and feel like a real human.. at that point the natural birth rate will probably drop to zero.
I am _baffled_ that people actually believe this. Most people, I suspect, prefer relationships with actual conscious entities to sexy autocomplete.
I am _baffled_ that people actually believe this. Most people, I suspect, prefer relationships with actual conscious entities to sexy autocomplete.
Despotic regimes absolutely do not want every citizen to be a Von Neumann.
State-sponsored designer babies of the future will be bred for obedience, not intelligence.
State-sponsored designer babies of the future will be bred for obedience, not intelligence.
I think you have the wrong idea about the effect of intelligence on political attitudes. Almost all the people who signed the Wannsee Protocol, which established the Final Solution (to the Jewish Question) had the German equivalent of PhDs, and all the way back in Ancient Greece Plato wrote down the first conception of a totalitarian regime when he wrote about his ideal state in The Republic.
Highly intelligent people tend to have a fetish for order and (assumed) rationalility, which leads to support for an authoritarian state. Because if you give people individual freedom and civil rights you will end up with a lot of disorderly conduct and irrational behavior in your society (see the US).
Unsurprisingly the PRC does not have the problem that its intellectual elite is opposed to the ruling regime. And I do not see the intellectual elites in the West being strong supporters of personal liberties (like freedom of speech..) either.
Highly intelligent people tend to have a fetish for order and (assumed) rationalility, which leads to support for an authoritarian state. Because if you give people individual freedom and civil rights you will end up with a lot of disorderly conduct and irrational behavior in your society (see the US).
Unsurprisingly the PRC does not have the problem that its intellectual elite is opposed to the ruling regime. And I do not see the intellectual elites in the West being strong supporters of personal liberties (like freedom of speech..) either.
This is beside the point. It's not that smart people aren't capable of gleefully taking part in malicious or cruel acts. They certainly are. But malicious cruelty is the byproduct of a despotic regime, rather than the underlying purpose. To a despot, power is the only goal, and everything else is just a means to an end. Sure, smart people can be complicit in cruelty. But stupid people can also be complicit in cruelty, and stupid people ask fewer questions.
It's the same reason we breed dogs primarily for obedience, and only secondarily for intelligence. We have no use for working dogs that use their intelligence for any purpose other than their master's. Dogs need to be only as smart as the task requires, and the rest of the time they need to be quietly docile and stay out of the way. And there's no law of the universe that says that humans can't be subject to same pressures.
It's the same reason we breed dogs primarily for obedience, and only secondarily for intelligence. We have no use for working dogs that use their intelligence for any purpose other than their master's. Dogs need to be only as smart as the task requires, and the rest of the time they need to be quietly docile and stay out of the way. And there's no law of the universe that says that humans can't be subject to same pressures.
> until the industry develops sexbots which look and feel like a real human.. at that point the natural birth rate will probably drop to zero
Why? We have a good comparison to sex bots - normalized prostitution.
In societies where prostitution and Sex Work is normalized (eg. Thailand and Japan by infidelity rates), sex work was not the cause of a TFR drop - it was government mandated family planning drives along with rising incomes.
People will be horny, but blaming the tools is the same as yelling at trees while ignoring the forest.
Why? We have a good comparison to sex bots - normalized prostitution.
In societies where prostitution and Sex Work is normalized (eg. Thailand and Japan by infidelity rates), sex work was not the cause of a TFR drop - it was government mandated family planning drives along with rising incomes.
People will be horny, but blaming the tools is the same as yelling at trees while ignoring the forest.
A prostitute is not a companion, not a replacement for a partner.
While the AI sexbot in question would simulate your ideal partner for you i.e. not just satisfy your sexual desires but also other emotional needs normally satisfied by a partner.
While the AI sexbot in question would simulate your ideal partner for you i.e. not just satisfy your sexual desires but also other emotional needs normally satisfied by a partner.
It's a lossy comparison but the whole point is a consumer is generating a parasocial relationship, partially physical but also partially emotional.
There's a reason I explicitly called out Japan and Thailand, as host/hostess bars are normalized in society there, and are used for the emotional needs aspect.
All you wrote is a weird screed in favor of eugenics.
There's a reason I explicitly called out Japan and Thailand, as host/hostess bars are normalized in society there, and are used for the emotional needs aspect.
All you wrote is a weird screed in favor of eugenics.
My point was that it does not matter whether I (or anyone else) support eugenics or not.
Once the ability is there certain regimes will use it, and the states who dont will not be able to compete.
And do seriously doubt the Chinese will do it?
This is not a moral / ideological question for me. Opposing genetic engineering is like opposing firearms with arguments like "We should fight man against man, sword in hand, a true test of strength, firearms are for weak cowards!" The firearm user will listen to that pontification and then just shoot you, like Indiana Jones in that movie.
There simply won't be a choice. Genius level intellects like von Neumann or Einstein are such massive force multipliers that the US will look like Swaziland by comparison once China has figured out how to mass produce them.
Once the ability is there certain regimes will use it, and the states who dont will not be able to compete.
And do seriously doubt the Chinese will do it?
This is not a moral / ideological question for me. Opposing genetic engineering is like opposing firearms with arguments like "We should fight man against man, sword in hand, a true test of strength, firearms are for weak cowards!" The firearm user will listen to that pontification and then just shoot you, like Indiana Jones in that movie.
There simply won't be a choice. Genius level intellects like von Neumann or Einstein are such massive force multipliers that the US will look like Swaziland by comparison once China has figured out how to mass produce them.
> And do seriously doubt the Chinese will do it
I do not, but there are A LOT of unsolved problems in the Life Sciences space before we can even attempt cloning.
We can't even regenerate bone yet without a biological graft, let alone multicellular organisms.
This is just techno-millenarianism like I mentioned in the other thread. Great thought experiments (and I am in a bit of a sci-fi binge rn) but not applicable when there are more tangible issues to deal with.
> Genius level intellects like von Neumann or Einstein are such massive force multipliers
The Ubermensch model of innovation is not how reality actually works.
Einstein was able to do what he did because he was born in a middle class Swiss family. If he was born in rural Ukraine, Poland, or Belarus (like most Ashkenazi like him were at the time) he'd have died either from child mortality or a pogrom like in Odessa 1881.
Who knows how many Einstein or von Neumanns have existed because they were not given the opportunity to reach their maximum potential.
This cannot be resolved by eugenics anyhow.
I do not, but there are A LOT of unsolved problems in the Life Sciences space before we can even attempt cloning.
We can't even regenerate bone yet without a biological graft, let alone multicellular organisms.
This is just techno-millenarianism like I mentioned in the other thread. Great thought experiments (and I am in a bit of a sci-fi binge rn) but not applicable when there are more tangible issues to deal with.
> Genius level intellects like von Neumann or Einstein are such massive force multipliers
The Ubermensch model of innovation is not how reality actually works.
Einstein was able to do what he did because he was born in a middle class Swiss family. If he was born in rural Ukraine, Poland, or Belarus (like most Ashkenazi like him were at the time) he'd have died either from child mortality or a pogrom like in Odessa 1881.
Who knows how many Einstein or von Neumanns have existed because they were not given the opportunity to reach their maximum potential.
This cannot be resolved by eugenics anyhow.
I think you're slightly missing the point. Sexbots aren't ideal companions, they are psychologically crippling. Like eating a diet of only candy that looks like vegetables and protein, or injecting heroin.
Humans aren't having children only because they are an accidental byproduct of sex. The lack abortion use, even where available, proves that.
Humans aren't having children only because they are an accidental byproduct of sex. The lack abortion use, even where available, proves that.
I can't grok the title. Can someone word it differently?
I mentally inserted a semicolon after "girlfriend".
Not glad to be making the same comment in less than 24 hours but it's even more fitting here:
Untreated mental illness.
Untreated mental illness.
It's like we watched the movie Her and took away the wrong lesson from it.
"Please don't build the torment nexus" wasn't meant to be an instruction manual.
You can pretty much extrapolate this to billionaire's understanding of sci-fi. They're deliberately missing its cautionary-tale essence and are instead thrilled by the dystopic scenery. There's this spot-on meme-saying:
The billionaires investing in space travel don't want Star Trek. They want DuneI doubt that Sam Altman is evil and I think you overestimate the power of billionaires.
Remember what happened to Jack Ma? A billionaire who was once the richest man in China? The moment he dared to challenge the Communist Party he was quickly dealt with. Or Chodorkowski? The Russian billionaire who dared to challenge Putin?
Worry about the regimes which are all about the will to power. First and foremost the CCP regime in China. They will develop every technology to the fullest, without any moral restrains, if it gives them more power.
Remember what happened to Jack Ma? A billionaire who was once the richest man in China? The moment he dared to challenge the Communist Party he was quickly dealt with. Or Chodorkowski? The Russian billionaire who dared to challenge Putin?
Worry about the regimes which are all about the will to power. First and foremost the CCP regime in China. They will develop every technology to the fullest, without any moral restrains, if it gives them more power.
God bless Murica
[deleted]
There are very few people in everyday live who are unhinged enough to want that, dont give them money.