Sorry to say, but this is the general trend and nature of technology. Technology can only advance to the level that it does because it does isolate people. The isolation effect cannot be fixed by social means, because it as the pressure gradient of technological and economic development on its side. The very adoption of technology encourages isolation and hence more dependence, which in turn increases its economic power because people begin to need it. And I dare say, even develop a psychological dependence on it.
The only way out is a strict restriction on the development of technology, especiall AI. Sadly, those who develop it and fund it grew up with it and it has become a comforting and crucial part of life so it is simply impossible to convince them that technology has a systemic (rather than merely social) downside. They convince themselves that we just need to learn how to use it, because a true systemic decrease in life quality via technology would imply that their entire world is wrong, and most people cannot handle that psychologically.
Like, objectively, how much overlap is there between a NEET who is addicted to waifus and dating sims in Persona and AI Friend or NSFW Apps?
My hunch is the overlap is significant, and at that point the problem is WHY you have those kinds of NEETs and how to resolve it, not the technology or medium itself.
Western Civil libertarian fundamentalists like much of HN would not appreciate the kinds of solutions East Asian societies like China and South Korea used (cracking down on games; limit hours spent gaming; and SEVERE social ostracism and disgust)
Edit: because subtext is apparently difficult
My point is, automatically jumping to "ban XYZ" does not solve the core problem that causes obsessive tendencies to manifest
The ultimate question here is what the values of the "Society" are.
Preferring real social interaction over isolation is a value judgement, clearly many people do value real social interaction less and less. There are two options here, either an outside force changes these values or these values are accepted as normal.
None of this has to do with technology itself, people are actively choosing to be anti-social. If you aren't going to accept their choice, what are you going to do?
I can't even imagine what is the first step towards exposing yourself to "AI friend apps". You're sitting at home and what? What happens between getting up one day and installing an AI friend?
This is merely a symptom. The emergence of overwhelmingly powerful and addictive social media apps almost perfectly correlates with this trend of loneliness.
Except for the last one my friends have ghosted me before rise of the AI Friends Apps.
The remaining.... people from my circle are not friends.
People who I spoke with generally share similar concerns, of the friendships breaking down for no apparent reason, so I'd rather reject the alarmist tone from the article.
The correlation is not causation. For me, at least.
The more robust welfare systems and stronger social safety nets in some European countries buffer against the economic/social stressors that contribute to loneliness.
This seems like a good argument for some kind of AI guardrails. And then the question is who decides where the guardrails start and end? I guess the straw man is: if you knew the AI friend was not going to advocate destructive behavior, to oneself (maybe less important?) and to the world around you, then the AI friend might actually be a net benefit because the actual person may feel more emotionally supported than they otherwise would be.
The problem is there's almost no way to regulate the guardrails, at least in a country like the US, and so then you're left with corporate interests deciding on the guardrails with their only incentive being hockey stick growth in engagement/revenue, which we already know is destructive in almost every corporate vertical (social media, food, etc.).
This is a symptom of alienation, imo, not a unique problem from AI.
There's a theory that we're becoming increasingly removed from our work -- we have less control over what we get to build, we have less control over how the products we build function.
Because we don't influence what we create as much, work becomes much more about getting a pay check. We no longer work to craft, we work simply to build the things the bosses want.
Now that work is just a paycheck, we're increasingly unsettled, and increasingly in competition with one another. Material conditions are such that the bosses get most of the profits, and we get squeezed more and more. Competition gets more desperate, and we begin to see others as threatening our remaining resources, more than a community.
Now that we're increasingly isolated from one another, we end up isolating ourselves. We find ourselves less creative, less fulfilled, more alone, and looking for any semblance of community.
It's not surprising someone in this state turns to anything, even an AI, that wants to engage with the person.
The top two comments here both suggest that the people using chatbots in place of social interaction were already a priori socially isolated and AI has no effect on it. It's merely a "symptom" or after the fact consequence.
I deeply, fundamentally disagree with that. Humans are one step mathematical operations that take in an input, transform to an output, and are done.
Human life is an endless continuous cascade of incentives, feedback loops, iterations, and modification. When you change anything in a person's environment, it will affect them. Perhaps the effect is small unless someone is primed by their prior environment in certain ways, but nonetheless nearly everything leaves its mark.
Can you eat healthy if your kitchen is full of free junk food? Yes, it's possible. Can you get out of the house and socialize even when endless media and parasocial relationships are just a screen away? Yes, it's possible.
Will you in practice? Evidence shows clearly over and over again that even tiny incentives have huge effects when compounded over time.
We all have a deep moral obligation to build an environment (physical, cultural, social) that is nourishing and incentivizes all of us to flourish. If you're building technology like AI chatbots that enables people to become more socially isolated, in my mind you are in the same category as junk food sellers, drug pushers, and polluting factory owners. You're making people sicker and the world worse.
All the comments like "the problem is not the tech, it's the humans", "those people were self-isolating already", "it's a symptom", etc. are missing the point.
AI didn't create the problem, but it makes the problem much worse by making it accessible at all times, making it seem believable, and disconnecting humans from reality (in a fantasy universe where the bot only praises them and succumbs to their every wish) to a degree never before possible.
And companies know how to exploit this to make money off these people, so their interest is in deepening the level of engagement, not putting guardrails.
The story of the 14-year old who committed suicide in order to "join" his bot lover sounds very similar to a drug overdose in order to escape reality.
You can say "drugs aren't the problem, humans are". Sure. But just like I don't want my kid carrying around a bottle of ecstasy or meth pills which he might be tempted to pop at any moment, neither do I want him carrying around a bottle of AI pills with potentially just as damaging effects.
Oh Jeesh. Now it’s ai, let’s not forget about: movies, books,comic books, video games D&D , Rock music, the internet and I guess anything else that people enjoy.
18 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 37.8 ms ] threadThe only way out is a strict restriction on the development of technology, especiall AI. Sadly, those who develop it and fund it grew up with it and it has become a comforting and crucial part of life so it is simply impossible to convince them that technology has a systemic (rather than merely social) downside. They convince themselves that we just need to learn how to use it, because a true systemic decrease in life quality via technology would imply that their entire world is wrong, and most people cannot handle that psychologically.
Like, objectively, how much overlap is there between a NEET who is addicted to waifus and dating sims in Persona and AI Friend or NSFW Apps?
My hunch is the overlap is significant, and at that point the problem is WHY you have those kinds of NEETs and how to resolve it, not the technology or medium itself.
Western Civil libertarian fundamentalists like much of HN would not appreciate the kinds of solutions East Asian societies like China and South Korea used (cracking down on games; limit hours spent gaming; and SEVERE social ostracism and disgust)
Edit: because subtext is apparently difficult
My point is, automatically jumping to "ban XYZ" does not solve the core problem that causes obsessive tendencies to manifest
None of this has to do with technology itself, people are actively choosing to be anti-social. If you aren't going to accept their choice, what are you going to do?
The remaining.... people from my circle are not friends.
People who I spoke with generally share similar concerns, of the friendships breaking down for no apparent reason, so I'd rather reject the alarmist tone from the article.
The correlation is not causation. For me, at least.
https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/projects-and-acti...
The problem is there's almost no way to regulate the guardrails, at least in a country like the US, and so then you're left with corporate interests deciding on the guardrails with their only incentive being hockey stick growth in engagement/revenue, which we already know is destructive in almost every corporate vertical (social media, food, etc.).
I honestly can't imagine using an AI app to ever qualify as what I would determine to be what I deem a friend.
There's a theory that we're becoming increasingly removed from our work -- we have less control over what we get to build, we have less control over how the products we build function.
Because we don't influence what we create as much, work becomes much more about getting a pay check. We no longer work to craft, we work simply to build the things the bosses want.
Now that work is just a paycheck, we're increasingly unsettled, and increasingly in competition with one another. Material conditions are such that the bosses get most of the profits, and we get squeezed more and more. Competition gets more desperate, and we begin to see others as threatening our remaining resources, more than a community.
Now that we're increasingly isolated from one another, we end up isolating ourselves. We find ourselves less creative, less fulfilled, more alone, and looking for any semblance of community.
It's not surprising someone in this state turns to anything, even an AI, that wants to engage with the person.
I deeply, fundamentally disagree with that. Humans are one step mathematical operations that take in an input, transform to an output, and are done.
Human life is an endless continuous cascade of incentives, feedback loops, iterations, and modification. When you change anything in a person's environment, it will affect them. Perhaps the effect is small unless someone is primed by their prior environment in certain ways, but nonetheless nearly everything leaves its mark.
Can you eat healthy if your kitchen is full of free junk food? Yes, it's possible. Can you get out of the house and socialize even when endless media and parasocial relationships are just a screen away? Yes, it's possible.
Will you in practice? Evidence shows clearly over and over again that even tiny incentives have huge effects when compounded over time.
We all have a deep moral obligation to build an environment (physical, cultural, social) that is nourishing and incentivizes all of us to flourish. If you're building technology like AI chatbots that enables people to become more socially isolated, in my mind you are in the same category as junk food sellers, drug pushers, and polluting factory owners. You're making people sicker and the world worse.
AI didn't create the problem, but it makes the problem much worse by making it accessible at all times, making it seem believable, and disconnecting humans from reality (in a fantasy universe where the bot only praises them and succumbs to their every wish) to a degree never before possible.
And companies know how to exploit this to make money off these people, so their interest is in deepening the level of engagement, not putting guardrails.
The story of the 14-year old who committed suicide in order to "join" his bot lover sounds very similar to a drug overdose in order to escape reality.
You can say "drugs aren't the problem, humans are". Sure. But just like I don't want my kid carrying around a bottle of ecstasy or meth pills which he might be tempted to pop at any moment, neither do I want him carrying around a bottle of AI pills with potentially just as damaging effects.