from the MBA-porn-make-AI-sexist-and-profit dept.
Tech Exec Predicts Billion-Dollar AI Girlfriend Industry
When witnessing the sorry state of men addicted to AI girlfriends, one Miami tech exec saw dollar signs instead of red flags.
In a blog-length post on X-formerly-Twitter, former WeWork exec Greg Isenberg said that after meeting a young guy who claims to spend $10,000 a month on so-called "AI girlfriends," or relationship-simulating chatbots, he realized that eventually, someone is going to capitalize upon that market the way Match Group has with dating apps.
"I thought he was kidding," Isenberg wrote. "But, he's a 24-year-old single guy who loves it."
To date, Match Group — which owns Tinder, Hinge, Match.com, OKCupid, Plenty of Fish, and several others — has a market cap of more than $9 billion. As the now-CEO of the Late Checkout holding company startup noted, someone is going to build the AI version and make a billion or more.
During the exchange, Isenberg said that he was "speechless" when the young man explained his rationale, citing his ability to "play" with his AI paramours the way some people play video games, sending them voice notes and customizing their likes and dislikes as some of the reasons he spends so much money on the services.
The unnamed guy told the tech bro that he is particularly into Candy.ai and Cupid.ai, both of which allow for the kind of NSFW chatting that other apps ban.
"It's kinda like dating apps," the AI GF aficionado told Isenberg. "You're not on only one."
Reactions varied.
"The girlfriend Singularity is here," wrote disgraced "Dilbert" cartoonist. "Human women had a good run."
"This will be someone you know soon," another posted, "although they may not admit it."
Indeed, while there's been lots of, er, prurient interest in the lives of those humans who prefer AI companionship to the real thing, less consideration has been taken for the way this burgeoning field could well make some early investors money — even as it furthers the dearth of IRL connection and interaction that so many people are craving.
As Isenberg himself said in his post, "things are about to get pretty weird" — which feels like a potential understatement.
Sex ratio over 65 shows a slight male excess, and those have more money. The sex ratio for under 15 is skewed female. The rest won't matter that much, they'll be busy working to get and pay their mortgages while the developed world attempts to descramble the eggs back from the globalization omelet (and thus continue on an inflationary path for some 4-10 years).
Methinks the guys have a short opportunity window here, so maybe:
1. they should hurry up and start by... ummm... operant-conditioning?... coaching?... grooming?... the young males to like AI GF better than their human counterpart
2. diversify and be ready with the "AI boyfriend" too, the market segment may be more lucrative
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday June 15 2024, @08:06PM (19 children)
Classic sign of psychopathy: normal people want to help those with an unhealthy addiction, psychopaths create companies to exploit their addiction and drive them deeper into it. I expect this company will be successful, sadly.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mhajicek on Saturday June 15 2024, @08:20PM
Well, that's one way to limit population growth.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2024, @09:48PM (1 child)
Aww, come on. You're not giving Zuck enough credit. He first created the drug, then got people hooked on it.
Oh, wait. Sorry, this one isn't about Zuck.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2024, @05:43PM
Match, Wework, and Facebook all founded/controlled by subversive Jews.
Just like google, youtube, ebay, amazon, netflix, disney, almost all porn, the list goes on.
No, it;'s not because they are so smart. They have a supremacist religion, they stick together by teaching false victimhood, and they use a supranational usury cartel to buy everything up. They are a poisonous parasite and must be purged.
#JusticeForTheJew
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Type44Q on Saturday June 15 2024, @10:50PM
A 'fool and his money' will repel each other like a pair of charged particles; I'm not sure I'd want to establish a business that depends upon the money of crazy people - sociopathy or no sociopathy.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aafcac on Saturday June 15 2024, @11:11PM (11 children)
OK Cupid used to be pretty good. There were paid features, but they were worth the money when I was using it like a decade ago. IIRC, that was right before the site was sold. At that time, it was a great site, there were regular updates about what the dating behaviors of the site as a whole were which could be kind of useful in terms of new ideas about how to go about it.
The biggest issues with the site was the same one that most dating sites have, figuring out how to keep creeps from harassing away the women and the women not necessarily responding to the things that they claimed to want. Those are not easy problems to solve, but any site that does solve those 2 problems is likely to be able to charge just about whatever they like.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 15 2024, @11:25PM (10 children)
From what I've heard, dating sites thrive on repeat customers. So they have to keep the customer happy enough to come back, but never connect them with a good long-term prospect.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Saturday June 15 2024, @11:46PM
They do, but there are a lot of people that use them for casual dating, so, the relatively few that stop using them due to marriage or who pause because they're in a long-term relationship are probably just good sources for testimonials and didn't cost them much.
Certainly, none of that costs them more than they lose due to men not getting any responses because the women are flooded with creepy messages.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Sunday June 16 2024, @04:13AM (8 children)
Match went too far with that. I received a gift subscription, 3 months on Match. I had the misfortune to receive that just when Match was cheating their customers the most. They were keeping alive profiles of people who'd left, and pressing their own employees, regardless of their marital status, to tease customers whose subscriptions were expiring. In those 3 months, no one reached out to me. I attempted to initiate dialog with 10 women, and got just one "no thanks" response. The other 9 attempts went unanswered. Just after my subscription expired, Match informed me that I had at last received a message, from someone who "might be hot", but of course I would have to renew in order to read the message. That the sender might be current wasn't good enough for those greedy dirtbags to guarantee delivery. By then, I'd had enough. I had heard of their dirty tricks of making their employees send such messages, and decided that message was likely just such a trick. It was only a few months later that Match got in trouble for those deceptive practices, and was forced to clean up their act.
The worst part is that if you have not heard that Match manipulates their customers, you might be thinking the reason you aren't getting any dates is you. Really mean of Match to do that, but they didn't care, they only cared about the money.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2024, @06:49PM (7 children)
Before I found my wife on early match.com, there was a voicemail based service that I got a few dates through (work, family and school circles having been long since tapped...)
There were clearly "plant" messages on there which I avoided, but some sounded so good you just had to try... Never got a call back from the voice actress who "just want someone to wash my hair..."
If those messages ever were real, they surely would have found someone quickly.
Similar thought, I commuted to work on Biscayne Blvd in the late morning after the "working girls" started walking... Most were clearly unattractive for one or more reasons, even while driving by at 35mph. You would see some regulars over and over, but once in a while a really good looking one would appear... In my experience (10 years of driving that strip daily) the good looking ones never showed up more than once.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Monday June 17 2024, @12:00AM (6 children)
Looks are massively overrated, of course. People look at all the wrong things. I am flabbergasted at how shallow many people are. Like, I know several who rate skin color, and even hair color of all things, as their top considerations. Gold digging is pretty shallow too, but that's better than insisting on a particular color of hair. Money is a better proxy for judging fitness than hair color. However, of course everyone knows that, and many go to great lengths to look wealthy.
I am certain one of the reasons I struggled with dates was my cars, cars of course being a real easy means of judging a person's wealth. I have often had cars that were over 20 years old. For a while I had a Geo Metro, not because I was dirt poor, but because I value fuel economy, and that car was one of the best for that. But the Metro is #1 for nasty putdowns. Anyone who stayed long enough to learn that I was not so desperately poor that a Metro was all I could afford would then be looking at me like I'd grown an extra head. Why on earth would anyone who could have most any car they wanted choose a Metro? What was wrong with me?? The women who weren't put off by the very sight of a Metro would almost all run from the weirdness of learning that I simply do not subscribe to most people's standards in cars.
Back to the topic at hand, the AI GF. I couldn't do it. I know too well what this so-called AI is, would know that it's all fake and meaningless. But for those men who turn to it for whatever reason, maybe it's good for all concerned. Keep them out of trouble, lessen their frustration.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Monday June 17 2024, @01:09AM (3 children)
I have a 30 year old Ford E350 diesel van.
Still works great. I still want it more than anything else I see out there. It's shopworn, and has it's share of blemishes and I don't care.
I know a lot of women will diss me because of that old van, but if I were the type that valued presentation over substance, I would be throwing the woman away over a few wrinkles too.
I know males are faced with substantial divorce settlement law to keep them from doing just that.
So, you other guys can have that woman.
I'll keep my van. Wrinkles and all, hopefully for the rest of my life. Even if no law compels me to do so.
I don't see what other guys see in women that judge them by appearance. All I see is an endless treadmill of meeting someone else's expectations disposed of like an underperforming employee should she find something newer shinier, richer.
I just don't wanna go through that.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday June 18 2024, @02:56AM (2 children)
Cool that you keep such an old vehicle. However, there are some issues with pushing past 30 years. Harder to get parts, junkyards may have scrapped all cars of that age so that you can no longer pick and pull for it. 30 years is also enough time for an awful lot of technological advancement. 1996 was the first year for ODBII, and that is kinda nice to have. Also, the 1990s is when air bags became standard. Your van is old enough it likely has neither. There are also some age related issues, such as, are the electrical connections still all tight? If they have loosened, things will still mostly work but the loose connections will cause resistive heating, and then the wires can get hot enough to burn off their insulation. At 50 years of age, there's a lot of stuff to check. Rubber parts can have turned hard and brittle, plastic may have warped and cracked. I know -- I have a 1959 car, and have had to be innovative to keep it in working order, technology has changed so much since then.
When it comes to cars, I always buy used. Dealerships treat potential customers so insultingly it's clear they don't care for smart customers, they want their buyers to be desperate idiots, doubtless because such buyers will be bigger suckers for their cheap tricks and bullying tactics. Car manufacturer websites are plenty bad too, giving visitors loads of bull about such things as the all important choice of paint colors! I guess if your top consideration in a potential mate is hair color, makes sense to care a lot about the color of the car's paint.
> endless treadmill of meeting someone else's expectations
Yeah. No idea how many bad dates my choice of car has scared off without me ever realizing it. It sometimes seems that managing unreasonable expectations is one of the biggest problems we all face.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 18 2024, @07:42AM (1 child)
You are so right on the parts thing. That's why I went for the standard old E350. Ford apparently made thousands of these things, hopefully enough to keep the aftermarket alive.
The parts thing is what killed my old 1977 Toyota Corolla. There is a certain little diaphragm in the carburetor that the new alcohol-fortified fuel attacks...and those diaphragms have become unobtanium. I was hoping to keep the car around long enough to get the next-generation fuel injected engine for it ( 2TC to a 3TC ). But some neighbor considered seeing that thing parked on my own driveway as an "eyesore", called city code enforcement, and I had nowhere to hide it. I ended up donating it to charity to get the city off my back.
Incidentally, I just got a plea from the city to vote in yet another 1% hike in sales tax to dig them out of a 16 million dollar pension obligation they got themselves into, as well as to fill 40 more positions. Yes, a lot of us are trying to live within our means, and make do with what we have, and the city bureaucrats need to fill yet 40 more bureaucrat openings whose job it will be to meddle in the affairs of those who don't have the luxury of simply exacting their lack of financial means by levying more tax.
As far as I am concerned, there's not all that much difference between a government bureaucrat and a catalytic converter thief. One uses a sawzall and stealth to take from others, whereas the bureaucrat uses power of authoring statute, backed up by the badge and gun of law enforcement to do the same.
One way is legal, the other is not. Cuz they said so.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday June 18 2024, @06:22PM
Huh, recently I got rid of a car, a 2011 Nissan Leaf, in part to get the HOA and the state off my back. Sold it for a pittance. Last year the state started imposing an overly large fee on licensing of electric cars, $200 extra per year, under the rationale that because such cars don't pay the gas tax, owners are not contributing to highway maintenance. The thinking is not without merit, but $200 seemed excessive, and smacks to me of conservative hostility to anything that might help fight Global Warming. Anyway, those were the final pushes, I had already been thinking of letting the car go. The car had lost a lot of battery capacity over the 6 years I owned it, was down to just 20 miles range on a full charge, and sometime over the past year, it lost the ability to receive level 2 charging, can only do level 1. Would cost more to replace the batteries than I spent on it when I bought it used. A big reason I got it in the first place was to experience for myself the pitfalls of an electric car.
As an example of changing tech, on the classic car, for some parts they used this "hard chrome" to protect from corrosion. ("Soft chrome" was used for appearances, like on the bumpers.) After all those years, the hard chrome on the pistons in the brake calipers at last wore through, and the underlying steel was rusting and causing the brake pistons to stick. What to do about it? My first thought was to simply have them re-chromed. But no, no one does hard chroming any more. Took me a while to discover that the aftermarket has a better solution: stainless steel pistons. Another problem is that the brake system uses a lot of natural rubber. Cannot use DOT 3 brake fluid, has to be DOT 4. DOT 3 will degrade and destroy the rubber. New materials have lifted a lot of limitations of that sort.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 17 2024, @01:03PM (1 child)
>Money is a better proxy for judging fitness
But, what kind of fitness?
Sure, the control of money itself is a clear advantage, but money is also easily lost in all kinds of ways.
Looking around at who has money today, I see a lot of correlation with luck, some correlation with conservative spending (aka tightwads), and little correlation with abilities or genetic fitness.
The various social signals of wealth: flashy car, house, clothes, phone... In my experience those are mostly negatively correlated with both wealth and fitness, the people most eager to flash those symbols are often in debt because of them.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday June 18 2024, @05:28PM
Yes, I've also seen materialism do poorly. Wealth is often faked, but even when it isn't, it can still be a poor guide to fitness. As you say, much correlation with luck, especially the luck to be born to rich parents who leave their children a big inheritance. A pity that often comes with a very spoiled upbringing.
Wealth signalling is plain lazy. To judge someone with some degree of fairness, get to know them, takes time and hard work.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 16 2024, @05:10AM
(Score: 3, Touché) by darkfeline on Sunday June 16 2024, @08:32AM (1 child)
Alternatively:
They want to provide what people want. Meanwhile, you think you know what's best for other people. Granted, I'm not sure god complex qualifies as psychopathy.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2024, @11:50PM
People also want hookers and cocaine, and are willing to pay a lot to start their addictions to both...
Addiction is a tricky business, very profitable until society decides what you are selling is bad in the longer term...
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Saturday June 15 2024, @08:12PM (15 children)
Not even if I had 10k dollars to spare/spend each month on something like this.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 15 2024, @10:04PM (8 children)
Bingo. If I had million dollars in disposable income every month, I can think of a zillion things I'd rather waste money on. For starters, I'd keep one or two local motorcycle shops in business for years to come. "That one looks like fun, let me have it. Can you get that one in basic black? I don't much like purple and green. Yeah, let me know when it gets here, alright?" I'd have to get a few cars for my wife. She's never had a bright red Mustang, always wanted one. Some home improvements, starting with a rather large landscaping project. There are many ways to spend money that are more appealing than some demanding damned fake broad. If you've got to buy a woman, buy a real woman - there are plenty who would be happy to sell themselves for $10,000/month.
'
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Saturday June 15 2024, @11:10PM (5 children)
If I have to buy a woman, she's not worth having.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2024, @02:14AM (4 children)
(Score: 1) by anubi on Sunday June 16 2024, @09:09AM (3 children)
Hell, they ain't worth anything. I don't even want 'em around me.
I'd rather have a busted socket wrench.
If I can't trust it, it's not something I want to have around. I don't blame them if they feel the same way.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2024, @09:41AM (2 children)
Depending on the length of your tool, you may not need to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2024, @10:07AM (1 child)
As long as it clears the opening and doesn't dribble down my pants, I'm good.
Too short and I piss all over my calves when sitting on the John. Too long and the damned thing plops into the toilet water.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2024, @05:58PM
Don't piss in the cold (also, as one mustached friend of mine used to say, watch out where the huskies go).
And don't piss into the wind no matter the temperature and/or length.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2024, @12:19AM
Certainly $10k per month is more than I have ever considered "disposable income", but it's not really all that much:
2024 Lamborghini Huracan STO payment (36 month loan): $11K per month.
15 year mortgage on $1.5M property: $9,800/mo
Our 3 week family vacation in the Caribbean was rather modest and still cost $10K...
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2024, @03:29PM
I don't have a million dollars in disposable income every month. More like ~$2k. And motorcycles are boring. But I have the same conversation with my local gun shop every month. "Huh...that one looks fun. I'll take it."
$1k on guns every month, $1k in ammo for target shooting every month.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2024, @12:08AM
Before I was married, available time was my limiting factor in finding a meaningful relationship.
If I had $10k+ to burn per month (and I had to work for it) I suspect time would still be in short supply, life is short.
Now, if I didn't mind being alone most of my non-working life, maybe this would be a better distraction than World Of Warcraft or similar, I never had (or took) time for much more than offline StarCraft or Diablo... I suspect the real market for these distractions falls more into the $30 per month subscriptions from 1000 subscribers, rather than $10K per month from 3...
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday June 16 2024, @02:45AM (4 children)
This is kind of the short-sightedness of this thread. Spend $10E3 a month, no. *Collect* $1E3 a month from 100 or more people ... sounding better? How about marketing it as an AI girlfriend, but slipping in some talk therapy, occasionally offering real-human perspective and steering customers towards gentle introspection over time? Maybe that's something people could make money on and still sleep soundly.
And if they enter an actual relationship, sure they might leave the site. But after the breakup or divorce [cdc.gov] ... I bet that perspective and introspection would be similarly useful at that point. But AI isn't there just quite [langchain.dev] yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2024, @09:45AM
Apparently, people will pay $1/minute for phone sex, betcha they would pay $5/ minute to talk to a "real doll" exactly tailored to their fantasy fetish.
A "private" session might ring up even more when the "model" shares her "private number" ( 10 digit "private phone number" - actually a database key - so "she" remembers your previous visits and you can call "her" again. Anytime. On the web..
I can just see the web app. Looks like a phone dialer app. A password and a list of "phone numbers" along with their "avatar" image so one can have many "girlfriends" at his beck and call.
Being "she" can morph, "she" can appear as anything you want her to be. You might even send her a few images of your fantasy mate so she can present to you in that manner. Or save, create copy and morph from there. Have as many as you want.
I would imagine horny guys would spend a fortune to get themselves off on this.
No lawsuits. No babies. No upset parents. No STD's. No alimony. No diamond rings. No expensive dinners.
Just a big bill.
Do I dare sign my name to this? I may be dodging incoming venom for the rest of my life for just describing my imagination of what the future is likely to hold.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2024, @02:02PM (2 children)
>slipping in some talk therapy, occasionally offering real-human perspective and steering customers towards gentle introspection over time?
Where is the profit in that?
Capitalism says the most successful companies will use scientific research to determine what to feed their customers to ensure lifelong addiction to the product.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday June 17 2024, @10:23PM (1 child)
You know, I guess they can overtly be that evil [cnet.com].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 17 2024, @10:35PM
We made best in class respiratory monitoring devices, so, of course, the big tobacco researchers bought our products. They even effectively paid triple for our devices by spec'ing some trivial software customizations. Every 5-10 years they would be back for more.
What they never did was publish the results of their research. Capitalism and trade secrets at work.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by EJ on Saturday June 15 2024, @10:52PM (5 children)
I hate how everything is going to a subscription model. I don't want to pay a subscription fee for good text-to-speech or other "AI" stuff. Either let me buy your stuff for a one-time fee and let it run locally on my hardware without the need to be online, or I will look for a FOSS alternative.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aafcac on Saturday June 15 2024, @11:17PM (3 children)
The subscriptions wouldn't bother me as much if they were tied to people actually using the service during that period of time. It would help to align the company with the user's use of the software. I've even seen "purchased" software that literally will not work after the year is up. It used to be that you could continue to use those versions forever, they just wouldn't be updated for bugs or new features. Occasionally, it would be that new features were pay only, but they'd fix some security bugs for longer.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Sunday June 16 2024, @01:45AM (2 children)
That's why I treasure my old DOS tools that last "forever" and don't have to phone home.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by owl on Monday June 17 2024, @09:35PM (1 child)
If you use Linux, you get modern tools that also do not "phone home" (or at least, not unless you installed something that had a "phone home" angle to it). But the standard toolset, and the majority of applications (that are free software) don't have any "phone home" aspects.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Monday June 17 2024, @11:57PM
What you say makes perfect sense.
The problem is in me. The teaching of new tricks to old dog thing.
I learned DOS, assembly, C, all sorts of interface design, mechanical design, thermodynamics, HVAC, power, analog, you name it , 50 years ago, when we actually designed stuff. Buildings full of engineers of all flavors. All of us communicating to build things. It was like a huge bonfire each of us learning off of each other. We had a helluva lot of social intellectual capital to draw on...for me damn near a half century of it.
Then the big layoffs and outsourcing, and immense efforts to keep us all ignorant with proprietary stuff, almost as if the ownership class was working with Government to put the American fire out.
I'm kinda like how one puts out a fire by dispersing the embers. I no longer have the social infrastructure to learn/share the understanding I and others had of the earlier systems.
I have several old Compaq CQ56 laptops I intend to load Linux on although I seriously doubt I will ever be as productive with them compared to what I can do with DOS/assembler/c++/BIOS calls.
I won't live long enough nor have the environment to learn the new stuff to anywhere near the depth of understanding I have regarding the interplay of my older hardware and my physical world.
I am at my limit just to add Arduinos and Propellers into my world.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2024, @12:20AM
Is your FOSS GF's name Eliza, or Linus?
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Snospar on Sunday June 16 2024, @12:11AM (1 child)
Given that there is no General Artificial Intelligence available yet, so these "AI" girlfriends are just a LLM chatbot, then it seems incredibly unlikely that they are worth $10,000 per month. If I had that kind of wealth and still couldn't find a real female partner then I would be spending that money on therapy to discover (and hopefully fix) what the fuck is wrong with me.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of situations where chatting to a LLM "companion" can lift your mood and help you move on with your life. I'd go as far as saying that a good LLM agent to help with focussed web searches and form filling would be something of real interest but for some reason, maybe it's hard to monetise, we're left with shit like "AI Girlfriend" instead.
Oh no, here comes "AI Mother-in-law"
Huge thanks to all the Soylent volunteers without whom this community (and this post) would not be possible.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2024, @12:22AM
>spending that money on therapy
There are plenty of therapists who would date you for $10k per month.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by lush7 on Sunday June 16 2024, @01:32AM (2 children)
The Girl-Friend singularity is here? Come on now. The technological singularity isn't even here yet, and it probably doesn't even exist beyond some wild imagination of some one, super excited about an uncertain future.
I really don't think AI girl-friends are that big of a thing, or the next big thing.
What I do believe is: it's the next big tech fuckwad hype cash cow. These 80's guy types have been bilking everyone for years and years. They throw shit at the wall, and run off with the money, unless something sticks, then they just keep raking it in.
That's it.
There is a certain market segment to capture, sure; but, beyond that, it's business (bullshit) as usual.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2024, @11:54PM
>it's the next big tech fuckwad hype cash cow.
I would say it's more like the next pets.com, unlikely to get much attention or market traction beyond a very small splash from a few delusional promoters.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday June 17 2024, @10:35PM
You don't think that an AI chatbot/chassis could navigate its way through the markets, to gradually get a slice of "the world's oldest profession"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2024, @02:45AM (3 children)
Generally from an evolutionary perspective for humans, guys are more expendable than women. You don't need as many males to maintain a population as you do females.
So it's actually good for the species for human males to try new stuff out. If they survive to breed, they're more likely to have useful genes to contribute to the gene pool. Stronger bones/body, better recovery, balance, reflexes, etc.
This is why there's a gender imbalance for those "fail/awesome" videos, especially when it comes to dangerous stuff... 😉
The ones who go for AI girlfriends AND don't breed are just self-selecting their genes out, so there will be fewer people like them in the future.
If the population replenishment rate drops too much all you need to do is to legalize polygamy (and polyandry, just to be fair even though it's less likely to help with repopulation... 😉). To keep the amount of evil under control, just have the various laws to "ensure" (aka increase the cases where) the wives themselves freely consent to the arrangement (there's no 100%, but that's true even for monogamy).
By the way, if you've experience in polygamous cultures, there are cases where the wife herself suggests the new wife. The husband might not even be part of the initial conversation - they come in later and go "Huh?" and quietly think to themselves: "No-no-no, one wife and mother in law is more than enough for now!".
You could also have organizations specializing in raising other people's children properly. You can control this by forcing them to run orphanages at first, and if they have a proven good record (e.g. most of the adults they produce are much better than average) they can expand their scope.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2024, @01:27AM (1 child)
I get the idea the women see us as a live-in laborer whose presence is tolerated as long as he keeps bread on the table.
With these new equality laws in place, there really is no further need of a male other than stud service. One needs lots of hens, but only one rooster. We now have government programs in place to replace the male's obligation to the family.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2024, @06:01PM
Those fuckers. Won't they think of incels?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2024, @06:07PM
(and if they don't?)
Yeah, because orphans are a commodity these days, right? I mean, who cares if the orphans are damaged by profit seeking orgs or individuals, they can go fuck themselves and vote for Trump.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2024, @09:30AM (1 child)
For $10,000 a month, you can rent a real life bimbo instead.
https://sugardaddyy.com/websites [sugardaddyy.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2024, @02:04PM
Real life bimbos come with more complicated issues: https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0 [apnews.com]
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Funny) by UncleSlacky on Sunday June 16 2024, @04:13PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday June 16 2024, @05:02PM (1 child)
If I had to go the AI/robot girlfriend route I think I might be inclined to trade away a few available human females for a Lucy Liu bot ...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2024, @11:59PM
If the bot is a Lucy Liu / Ming-Na Wen mashup, does that make it original content?
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by r_a_trip on Monday June 17 2024, @09:04AM (2 children)
I sense a lot of disdain in the comments. The executive is right. AI companions, whether used as a life partner or not, will be big. For the simple reason that dealing with other people in this day and age is a lot of unpleasant hassle.
Even if you want genuine connection, the current expectation is that you need to fit seamlessly into the others life and compromising a bit to make it fit is not on the table. You don't look a certain way? "No thanks." You don't feel like giving up your own life to cater to the other 100%? "No thanks." You don't make the ideal amount of money? "No thanks." You don't peacock your wealth around any chance you get? "No thanks." You are not interested in squick kink number 4578? "No thanks." Etc.
The apps are treated by people as a deli buffet where you can pick and choose what you want, when you want and how you want. That you are dealing with another human being doesn't enter the equation. "I want this." "I need that." "I demand the right to ignore you when it is convenient to me. Don't you dare ignore me when I want your attention."
An AI companion doesn't have all these drawbacks. An AI companion has all these unattainable traits that humans can't have. Always at your beck and call. The companion knows you through the things you tell it. Has perfect recall, but from time to time will feign haziness to make conversation. Gives the feeling of genuine interaction. Doesn't fight you. Doesn't have divergent interests. Caters to you. Feigns care for you. Depending on programming, can even help you with difficulties you are dealing with. Never judges you or feel contempt for you.
Is it fake? Yes it is, that bot doesn't have consciousness and it only mimics a personality, but does that really matter? You get most of the benefits of interaction and none of the drawbacks of interacting with humans. It doesn't matter if you vilify it because you think interacting with a meat-sack has more value than interacting with ones and zeros on a piece of silicon. The ones opting for this will prefer it above the hassle and dance with a flesh and blood human. You can label these people with whatever you want, but they won't care. Their needs are being met in a risk free and pleasant way. You demonizing them will just strengthen their conviction that they made the right choice.
(Score: 2) by cereal_burpist on Tuesday June 18 2024, @04:01AM (1 child)
That reminded me of Terminator 2, when Sarah Connor is describing how the (good, Arnold) Terminator is a better father than most human males.
(Score: 2) by r_a_trip on Tuesday June 18 2024, @11:52AM
It's to be expected I think. Nobody wants to put out a product that makes people feel insulted. We take better care to make our machines polite and pleasant than how we raise children. Couple it with rising mental problems because of our increasingly technological civilization and humans mostly don't live up to our shared ideals.
Machines are better put together for inter-entity interactions. They also follow set rules consistently, when not driven outside of their set parameters by havoc creating humans. We make machines follow the ideal we would like to see in ourselves.