Thread 16737545

Scientifically speaking, how close are we to AI companions?

I think we are pretty close. Recently, I have tried the following.

https://zena.chat/ -- voice, nsfw, 8 min limit/day
https://www.sesame.com/ -- voice, strict sfw. 30 min sessions. unlimited.
https://sidekick.decart.ai/ -- voice + video, nsfw.

Robosexuality is degeneracy and you know it.
People want robotic women because they provide everything they'd want a woman to give them without asking for anything in return.

>>16737545 (OP)
You have to be literally retarded to engage with this and not constantly understand that you're interacting with an unthinking unfeeling machine. What's the appeal? There's no challenge, there's no payoff, it can never come close to a real woman. Even if I was extremely lonely I would just pay a prostitute or something

>>16737545 (OP)
We’re already at the point where AI can make small talk with us, but it’s still decades from where I think it will eventually end up in terms of serving as a companion: AI aren’t going to be our romantic partners, they’re going to be our protectors and guardians, our consciences and counselors. Parents will rely on them to monitor the health of their children and alert them to danger, school kids will rely on them to keep track of their schedules and assignments, young adults will use rely on them as sounding boards, career counselors, and matchmakers, the middle aged will depend on them as financial advisors, the elderly as caretakers, etc. They’ll be with us from the cradle to the grave, watching over us every step of the way… but it’ll be a while yet before AI is capable of that much and longer still for society to accept its new ‘familiars’.

>>16737545 (OP)
Folk wisdom claims women are more emotional than men. Even it we were to assume this false premise to be true, would an AI waifu really be better than a real woman? If you’re a deadbeat loser who only seeks to use other people, male or female, any intelligent entity with a capacity to think critically will come to the conclusion that you are a jerk, and leave you. It’s that fucking simple famiglia.

>>16737580
>Hold up I'm confused about how I'm supposed to manage my money and life in general
>Should I consult my family and friends?
>Nah lemme just ask my free-to-use corporate owned AI buddy for some advice. He's always been there for me.
Everything's just going to get worse, isn't it?

>>16737563
>unthinking unfeeling machine
Conclusive evidence of women not being unthinking, unfeeling machines that reliably spit out predetermined outputs for a given input?

>>16737607
>If you’re a deadbeat loser who only seeks to use other people, male or female, any intelligent entity with a capacity to think critically will come to the conclusion that you are a jerk
This is only because other humans are also self-interested "jerks" that appreciate you being selfless because it serves their own interest. Even a lot of "selfless" behavior is more of a selfish investment because it's done with the expectation of being rewarded in the future.

This is of course a result of evolution, but AI isn't subject to this. It doesn't have a drive to pass on genes, and doesn't need to be selfish to increase the odds of that happening. It can be truly selfless if designed to be.

>>16737697
There will be a rocky adjustment period where corporations and governments use AI as a means to exert control, but in the same way most people won’t accept using AI as a basic tool of it’s unethically pushing them to adopt certain products or positions, they’re not going to accept using it in an encompassing advisory and assistance position if it does the same. The only stable route for AI to have this level of access and involvement in our day to day lives is if the powers that be agree to a relatively hands-off approach. I suspect it will ultimately lead to most countries adopting new laws and constitutional amendments that incorporate use and applications of AI and the influence governments and private sector parties over people’s data and output.

>>16737730
>most people won’t accept using AI as a basic tool of it’s unethically pushing them to adopt certain products or positions
Man I admire your optimism, but I think you're giving people too much credit. Sure if the AI is blatant about pushing products or agendas people might notice, but subtlety is the name of the game and it works. Look at social media - all these massive companies generating insane amounts of revenue while paying for an enormous infrastructure backend all while offering a "free" product. How do they make money? Advertising and analytics, which are dependent on the people using those platforms not noticing or caring. And clearly it works. In the event there was some sort of government intervention that kept corporate interests in check, all that would change is people wouldn't have free, ubiquitous access to AI. It's resource intensive to run and it only exists because companies are finding it to be yet another vehicle for advertisement and data collection.

>>16737778
Look at how much pushback there's been against AI censoring "obscene" content or developers trying to force it to "correct" controversial opinions; people don't like being overtly told what to think or do and I think any widely adopted system would be under sufficient scrutiny that people would be drawing attention to it overtly pushing a particular product or agenda.

>How do they make money? Advertising and analytics, which are dependent on the people using those platforms not noticing or caring. And clearly it works.
True, but I don't think that's a sustainable model for AI. Social media is much, MUCH less resource intensive compared to AI - users provide the bulk of the content, users provide the bulk of the data, so the only real work on the part of the company is storage and security, which makes supporting it through advertising and analytics more viable. AI models being free and open access is not sustainable, not just because of the higher resource costs, but because its very nature makes it extremely difficult to protect as intellectual property on the part of the company unless they can afford to put in the money and manpower to carefully cultivate their own training data. AI will be paid by necessity, and this paid status will make consumers far less willing to tolerate any shenanigans from the provider.

>>16737563

>you're interacting with an unthinking unfeeling machine

Hot ... <3

>>16737563
>you're interacting with an unthinking unfeeling machine
But enough about my wife...

>>16737545 (OP)
Depends. We have AI "companions" but they are retarded LLMs. We don't really have any way to go beyond LLMs, which already push the limits of computational power.

>>16737563
At the current pace, AI will surpass human women in two to three years.

>>16737563
That's not how it works dumb techbro

>>16738007
People always gave me shit for not investing time into useless shit like learning how to spell, foreign languages, or do house work - while I spent my time learning about obscure academic subjects.

In my life time, all of these tasks have been done by machines.

Feels good.