You must log in or register to comment.
TBF that shit was always really weird
Extremely common China W
Millions lose online companions
Ohhhh +He hUmAn!+y…
a unholy creation… it doesn’t matter who is slinging this garbage. I would rather commit you know what then embrace such evil. The luddites were one hundoo percent
Well since AI is off the table, who will now enter my basement to cohabitate? Surely a human will do this job now, right?
Thanks for all the replies, but I need time to parse through them all. Appreciate your patience.
🤣
I love how people with easy lives think that things like drugs and AI companions are the cause of problems instead of just coping mechanisms for people who already have hard lives.
Yeah, let’s just make their lives as hard as we possibly can, same as making it so homeless people have nowhere to sit.
It’s literally the EXACT same reasoning. You want people to be successfully interacting with others? Make social skills and integration classes mandatory for literally every single person starting the VERY first year of school.
While that’s often true, there’s also cases where for-profit corporations create predatory products that create their own demand and social problems with it. Like the online gambling explosion in North America.
Or pharma getting people hooked on opium? I remember china has some history with drug use too
How many people have decided not to kill themselves because they talked to an AI instead of nobody?
How many people have been so busy talking to an AI that they weren’t online to see others on Facebook attempting to cyberbully them?
You will never be successful in trying to make illegal an action that people see as a need.
If you are banning things people see as needs, that’s not governance. That’s cruelty.
Focus on making sure people’s needs are met, and start in childhood. People will stop reaching for alternatives.
How many people have been goaded into killing themselves due to talking to AI?
How many people have been talked out of killing themselves due to talking to AI?
How many people will be killed by people who have driven themselves into psychosis talking to AI?
WTF AI has literally talked people into killing themselves, multiple times
Have you ever talked to AI about wanting to not exist?
No, it will encourage you to get help.
You are talking about something very uncommon: people killing themselves because AI told them to.
You are not talking about something much more common: people NOT killing themselves because AI told them not to.
There may be many cases where AI has been a benefit to vulnerable people. LLMs aren’t going away any time soon so it’s good if they tell you not to kill yourself. But that should be the end of it. The more we lean on AI to fix societal problems, the deeper the problems will get. Relying on an LLM to be a substitute for human interaction is a really bad idea. It’s easy, it’s compelling, and it will help you to put yourself in a much deeper hole than you were in before.
If you are banning things people see as needs, that’s not governance. That’s cruelty.
How about fentanyl, or meth? Many people see them as a need, once they get started. Much like an AI companion, they offer a quick fix to make you feel better and get away from the difficulties you’re facing in the real world. And like an AI companion, they don’t actually address those difficulties and will only make things worse.
I understand that and I agree the approach under these assumptions must be needs-based. I’m saying, that it’s worth examining how much of this new phenomena is needs-not-met vs falling prey to a new kind of profit-driven entertainment. I have no idea what the numbers are. Could be mostly unmet need. It’s not necessarily following the same dybamics as drug use.
Don’t forget those are kids in their formation years. AI can be very deleterious to their social and intellectual make-up.
Speaking as an autistic person, I think it’s very funny when people talk about AI preventing people from having social interactions, when as an autistic child, everyone hated me and I had literally no one to talk to.
Autistic people make up a small part of the population, but a comparatively larger part of the population who’s not out socializing with others, so claiming that without AI they’d be out socializing with others is wrong.
For a lot of autistic people, there is no alternative. Talk to AI, or talk to no one, because no one will talk to you.
I would have loved to have had access to AI as a teenager.
But… Why? It’s not real. A book can provide the same solace AND improve your intellect. While you wait for that special one willing to have 1 to 1 with you. Introverts have some of the same struggles.
Unfortunately, books don’t provide that same solace for me, no.
Better one-to-one work with autistic people who lack certain social skills that helps them engage with other people, autistic or otherwise, specifically using their special interest (if they have one) as a hook would be far more beneficial for human contact for that section of the autistic population. They’re still human and deserve human-to-human contact, especially to talk about things they derive intense pleasure from.
I don’t think meth is helpful, regardless of whether it’s a coping mechanism or not.
That wasn’t what I said.
Ohhhhhhh boy.
How about this: I take methylphenidate daily.
What do you think about that?
Your body your choice.
you could have those classes but that won’t stop people from having moments in their lives where they’re emotionally vulnerable, whether it’s a bad breakup like in the article, the death of a loved one, or what have you. the whole point of this is to prevent companies from preying on people in those moments.
I get enough human interaction when I pay my rent to my landlord and when I wage slave at work.
Hard pass on your offer to learn how to interact with humans. I’ve had more then enough.
We have coping on our garden walls.
Yeah butnid gonfor both.
Teach human beings how to interact and bad these apps still, as well
deleted by creator
First time I’m going to criticize the CPC here.
Also, Allyson Horn, you’re on my list for using “crack” in relation to “China”,
which instead you could perhaps use for, you know, ICE maybe,
or Western ‘regimes’ versus pro-Palestinian protesters, except for Israel,
where ‘kidnapping and torture’ could be used in place of capture.That said, I’ll go even a step further than @obvs,
who correctly points out that this is like building spikes on park benches,
so the homeless have nowhere to sleep.If the CPC wants to “reverse the falling the birth rate”, it should think of a couple of things:
- Why would you even want that?
We’re in the 21st century and curing age related diseases to the point of rejuvenation could be just around the corner.
I would in fact argue that the world is less than 10 years away from it and since China is rapidly advancing with pharmaceuticals, there’s no need for me to say the West instead of the world. - Increase income security. Especially at young ages.
No one is going to want children if they’re not secure in their finances
and if it takes 40+ years to be secure in one’s finances,
then you’re gonna have to hope solution #1 to come true. - The most controversial one. Increase the operational sex ratio of female:male to slightly above 1, which is where I think the demand/supply equilibrium sits. Right now in China it’s 117 males per 100 females at age 20.
How are these 17 extra men going to find a partner? And why does this article mention a 17 year old girl when I’m quite confident that it’s 17 young men per 117 men who have a for more likely issue to not find a suitable relationship,
because it’s going to be impossible for 17 out of 117 for them.
No amount of social skills will help 117 20-something year old men magically turn their chances having a relationship with a potential 100 20-something year old women into an equivalent potential of 117 20-something year old women, but still remain with 100 20-something year old women for 117 20-something year old men.
If the numbers don’t add up, then it’s going to be physically impossible to solve this issue.
This should be textbook dialectical materialism 101.
Mandatory social skill lessons then comes in 4th.
And the these teachings should give students
a complete overview of society,
give a complete list
of all forms of communication options available
and all their possible consequences depending on
character, something I call “time slots of desire”
(offering someone a bowl of spaghetti that just ate spaghetti and feels full),
and mood (offering someone a bowl of spaghetti when that person is balancing a heavy object),
instead of list of random list of author advisories
(Sarah was afraid to talk to John, then she said this to him, and it all went well.)
plus a dose of optimism (Communicating is fun! Do it often! You’ll have a blast!),
which I got.- Why would you even want that?
