Sorry, No, AI Girlfriends Are Not Destroying The Birthrate Or Killing Medicare & Social Security
from the that’s-not-how-any-of-this-works dept
What is it with real life stories matching satirical online TV shows lately? We just had a story match one from The Office, and now we’ve got one (that’s much dumber) that is copied from a Futurama episode about how dating robots will lead to the downfall of civilization:
Recently, the Hill published a truly bizarre article that seems like it took that Futurama joke as real, claiming that “AI girlfriends are ruining an entire generation of men” by someone named Liberty Vittert. The headline is terrible. The article is worse.
First of all, most of the article is just warmed over stale leftovers from previous moral panics about how porn was causing dudes to not want real girlfriends, or how video games were removing men’s interest in sex. None of that was ever true, and it’s not true now. I dare you to find anyone who says that they wouldn’t prefer a real human relationship to an AI girlfriend.
But Vittert, who apparently is a professor of data science, is sure it’s happening. There are four paragraphs that start out by saying that an AI girlfriend “seems so ridiculous,” followed by her explaining why it “might sound enticing,” because you can set your own preferences. But, um, that’s… not why people actually date. Or likely why they are interested in an AI companion.
It seems likely that the reason many are interested in AI companions is loneliness. But, there’s little evidence anyone is using it as a substitute for a human companion. It’s there for those who are lonely and need someone to talk to, and a virtual AI one is better than nothing.
Yet, Vittert (again, who apparently teaches data science) takes this to mean that men are going for AI girlfriends instead of real girlfriends, and therefore, they’re not making babies. And without babies, there will be no one to pay for Medicare or Social Security.
While the concept of an AI girlfriend may seem like a joke, it really isn’t that funny. It is enabling a generation of lonely men to stay lonely and childless, which will have devastating effects on the U.S. economy in less than a decade.
Really.
They are choosing AI girlfriends over real women, meaning they don’t have relationships with real women, don’t marry them and then don’t have and raise babies with them. America desperately needs people to have more babies, but all the signs are pointing toward fewer relationships, fewer marriages and fewer babies.
I know that there are some people (hi Elon!) who keep insisting we need more babies, but… there is basically nothing scientific that supports this argument. The population of the earth continues to grow. We are not at risk of running out of people.
And, if the argument is just that, say, the US needs more people, there’s an easy way to do that: lessen our ridiculous restrictions on immigration.
Either way, there is no way that “AI girlfriends” are leading people to have fewer babies. I guarantee you that sex with an actual human being is way, way, way better than sexting with an imaginary companion. No one is “remaining childless” because they think they’d prefer a bot on a phone to a real human being.
Also, for a “data scientist” you’d think that this argument would be supported with actual data. Except, what data is put in there is the kind of data you use to obfuscate a point, rather than strengthen one.
She points to Pew’s regular study of how many young people say they’re single, noting that way more young men say they are than young women:
Let’s look at the hard numbers. More than 60 percent of young men (ages 18-30) are single, compared to only 30 percent of women the same age. One in five men report not having a single close friend, a number that has quadrupled in the last 30 years. The amount of social engagement with friends dropped by 20 hours per month over the pandemic and is still decreasing.
So, I hate that I have to explain this to a true data science professor, but, um, if the women aren’t single, then there’s less of a problem on the baby front, because they’re the ones who make the babies. But really, the number discrepancy (you can see the actual data) seems like there’s a much more logical explanation that is not “AI girlfriends” and it is… that men and women view relationships differently. It seems that a much more reasonable explanation of why 63% of 18 to 29 year old men and only 34% of 18 to 29 year old women say they are single… is that some of the women in that age group consider themselves in a relationship with men who think they’re actually casually dating around.
And, yes, that could be considered kinda sad. But, it has nothing to do with AI girlfriends, and it’s hard to see how that has any impact on likelihood of babies, let alone the impact on social security and medicare, as the article suggests. I mean, basic logic suggests the final sentence below has fuck all to do with everything that precedes it:
Put another way, we don’t have enough people to work, and therefore we won’t be able to pay our bills, not just to other countries, but to ourselves. We spent more than $1.6 trillion in 2021 on Medicare and Medicaid, with the number of Americans on Medicare expected to increase by 50 percent by 2030, to more than 80 million people. But over the same period, we will have only 10 million more Americans joining the workforce.
And that is just health care. In 1940, there were 42 workers per beneficiary of Social Security. Today, there are only 2.8 workers per beneficiary, and that number is getting smaller. We are going broke, and the young men who will play a huge role in determining our nation’s future are going there with AI girlfriends in their pockets.
Again, if our concern is not enough people to work, and not enough people contributing to social safety nets, immigration is right there. AI has nothing to do with it. Also, if this is such a concern now, why are you sharing trends from decades ago when AI companions really only became a thing in the past year?
And, must we even get into how wrong this article is about how AI works?
By definition, the AI learns from your reactions and is capable of giving you exactly what you want to hear or see, every single time.
AI might learn from you, but, um, it is not capable of “giving you exactly what you want to hear or see, every single time.” Especially not as an alternative to an actual live human being.
Look, I get it, there are all sorts of moral panics we’re hearing about AI these days, but can we at least keep them in the realm of possibility, and not in the form of “Futurama, but real”?
Filed Under: ai, ai girlfriends, liberty vittert, medicare, population decline, social security
Comments on “Sorry, No, AI Girlfriends Are Not Destroying The Birthrate Or Killing Medicare & Social Security”
“What is it with real life stories matching satirical online TV shows lately?”
ITS ON THE INTERWAEBS! IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!
Re:
The best sci-fi (and horror/fantasy) extrapolates from what we see in the world around us and recontexutalises it into things we can understand, often predicting or reflecting issues that can’t be easily accepted with standard drama.
Journalism is no longer the selling point of news outlets, and often consists of lazy rewriting or clickbaiting nonsense.
The intersection of these can sometimes lead to articles that sell copies but don’t pass logical muster.
So is taxing the obscenely wealthy.
Re:
Yes, but who takes care of those who are too old or ill to look after themselves, as a social safety net need people as well as money.
Re: Re:
Pfft. They should have thought of the ramifications of being invalid before they were born. Conception is the number one cause of illness and death after all.
Re: Re:
Well, we can go through the bottleneck once then. You can’t exponentially grow population just so there are enough people to take care of the previous generations. Or, you know, promote caregiving and stop the ridiculous rate of healthcare inflation.
Re: Re: Re:
“the ridiculous rate of healthcare inflation”
In the US, a lot of that is there because the older generation resisted the public healthcare reforms that keep the costs down elsewhere.
Yes, those other systems have many of their own problems, and overall care for an ageing population is a real issue globally, but specifically with healthcare in the US the reason those costs are high is because the older people voted against making them cheaper.
Re:
A few hundred to thousand dollars per person would fix the social safety nets? Are you sure that they were in that big of trouble to begin with?
I enjoy it when Mike posts
The snark is strong with this one.
I want my Chobits.
Hmm, where can I get me one of these AI girlfriends? 🙂
more obvious explanation
There’s a much, much more obvious explanation: Women are far more likely to date older men. I spent my 30s dating college women. I spent my 40s dating college women and 30-somethings.
As much as millennial men (bizarrely) don’t want it to be true for whatever reason, women ON AVERAGE date men who are older than themselves.
I’m not saying that this is the only reason for the discrepancy, but I guarantee it accounts for more of the discrepancy than “men and women view relationships differently.”
Count me in if...
…. I am able to obtain a Rebecca Fergusonbot.
"America desperately needs people to have more babies," == wrong
Those who think unbridled growth is sustainable are wrong.
This planet is over populated and if humans do not act accordingly every living thing will suffer as a result. There is no denying this as it is presently self evident.
There is no more road to kick that can down.
Re:
This sounds like something a comic book villain would say before trying to wipe out a significant chunk of human life.
Re: Re:
What are we going to do today, Brain?
Re: Re:
Eh, it’s also someone who looks at resource extraction (think: copper, manganese, titanium, coal) and asks “is this sustainable?”
If the answer is “we’ll figure out answers and work arounds in the future” … well, you’re right. But personally, I prefer Soylent Green as an allegory rather than a prediction.
Um… why?
Wake me up when humanity is a species endangered by more than the consequences of its own designs.
Re: Re: Re:
“I prefer Soylent Green as an allegory rather than a prediction”
It mostly is, but the essential problem isn’t resources but rather how those resources are allocated.
“Um… why?”
I’m sad to say that this is usually something related to the “great replacement theory”, and is related to how whites will become a minority because women are too independent to be baby factories.
Re:
Oh really?
I remember a very simple mathematical study placing every human being in one place and not even covering an area the size of Manhattan.
Re: Re:
That’s for the population of the US.
The entire world population would take up about 450 square miles according to National Geographic.
I wish people would learn that anybody worried about the amount of babies people are or aren’t having are invariably wrong and usually creeps.
Incels don't need to breed
I wouldn’t want the average 4chan user making babies, the world is better off with them making palm babies with their AI gf’s
Thx for the mansplaining
Look AI girlfriends might not be destroying human civilization but maybe you underestimate the potential of male human beings to be total dirtbags and the ability of corporate overlords to take advantage of that trait
Re:
Did you have a point or are you just venting?
It's like the school lunches thing. If we REALLY want kids...
No, the thing that is killing birthrates is not artificial lovers, but our gladness to work everyone to exhaustion.
Allow someone to keep and feed a family with a half-time job, and they’ll have kids and then have time and energy to engage those kids.
We resent paying for school lunches. We resent paying for a living wage (just a living wage, not even enough to feed a family)
We don’t want healthy, functional future citizens that know how to engage in civics. We want barely-functional laborers and solders we can drop into our factories and eject and forget about when they’re expended.
AI Girlfriends are the new video games, the new rock-&-roll, it’s the new thing kids are into that we blame for our society’s woes so we don’t have to address that kids (and adults) are going hungry and homeless, and that our plutocratic masters like it that way. (And recently have been expressing as much.)
Re:
The irony? They’re not even THAT good.
I will not have children, ever.
I’m 40, nearing 41. And I’ve CHOSEN not to reproduce. Why? Genetics. My father and mother were bipolar. And let me tell you, Depression is one of the most horrific things you inflict on a human. It robs you of your existence in ways great and small. I refuse to risk making any sentient being suffer because of a drive to create more offspring. It’s selfish and short sighted.
Wait, wait, wait, somebody actually thought video games were removing men’s interest in sex?
What the actual fuck!!!
Uhhh
To be fair, there are a lot of people who prefer certain fictional characters over real life people, however honestly as long as it’s not hurting anyone and isn’t trying too, then it’s morally not anyone’s else’s business.
Forcing people to have babies would be a clear a violation of human rights anyway. lol
Besides what I’ve said on here, the planet is over-populated in terms of nature judging by the stories of how so much life is being destroyed including extinction. It’s better off to legally have more adoption available to the right kind of people who is open for it, and as one said, better immigration laws.
Re:
It’s also been a central plank of the GOP platform for the past 50 years.
Re: Re:
And it will likely continue to be a plank for the next 50.
Re: Re: Re:
Absolute planks, the lot of them.
Re: Re: Re:2
Only Sith deal in absolutes…..
Re: Re: Re:3
At least they’re absolutely sure to give you a choice to join the Sith.
As to how, though, they might have had a hand in forcing you to get there…
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think “controlling women’s bodies continues to be a central plank of the GOP” and “the GOP is still a going concern 50 years from now” are mutually tenable goals.
Re: Re: Re:2
I admire your optimism.
Personally, I think it’s the AI boyfriends that will be more popular. It seems more likely to me that women will be seeking AI boyfriends instead for an “emotional connection” that the men in their lives don’t fulfill.
There seem to be a lot more stories around about women who are upset at the emotionally immature men in their life than men wishing they had more emotionally mature women.
Re:
I…don’t think people flirting with computers are really in the market for emotional maturity.
Re: Re: Not yet at least.
There’s a story from some time ago about a young woman considering if she wanted to have a baby. Concerned about the responsibilities, she booted up The Sims 2 as an initial means to see if she could hack it, and reported that as a result she expected it to be harder than it was. (As an opposing opinion, I found Sims 2 babies to be pretty easy, at least in comparison to the nightmare stories I’ve heard.)
But I’d like to imagine that we’d some day have interaction simulations that were sophisticated enough to help some of us develop social skills which we had to work out from trial and error. I’d certainly like some of my early trainwreck relationships to be simulations that didn’t cause real psychological trauma.
I agree, though, that a) our AI is nowhere near that level of sophistication and b) we’ll sooner make power-play sexbots than we will relationship trainers, because that’s what will sell in the public market.
Re: Re:
Not computers per se, but any writer (paper or digital) will tell you that the market for romances is still pretty healthy. Even visual novels are more female oriented than the male enthusiasts would like to admit, this one excluded.
Re:
Well men as a whole are a lot less picky(?) Not sure if that’s the correct term.
As for maturity as defined by some is letting go of everything that brought joy into your life.
As Arthas was quoted “Suffer well.”
As well men don’t gossip about being ensnared in a bad relationship.
The final nail is that men come out as the big loosers more times than not.
In the final equation, modern men are avoiding the minefields altogether.
First, the Simpsons were the ones “predicting the future” – now it’s Futurama’s turn!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Springfield Armory 1911 Range Officer Lightweight Compact .45 ACP Handgun
https://gunprofesional.com/product/springfield-armory-1911-range-officer-lightweight-compact-45-acp-handgun/
Apparently we have a drastic lack of women, according to data expert person.
Breeders are disgusting. (No, i don’t mean anyone who decided to have kids.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Men and women see no reason to have any kind of physical, sexual or romantic relationships with each other. And why would they? All men want is a hole to stick a rapist organ into and women value actually having meaning and intelligence. This is why lesbians and gays are far happier than straight people, who have to constantly worry if the condom breaks or it’s the wrong time of the month. Heterosexuality is, by definition, fraught with power struggles and abuses. Not so for the LGBTQ+ community, who are so wholesome and pure that people who believe in an imaginary sky friend can’t stand that someone does their job better than them.
Forcing stupid ass basement dwellers to date robots, if anything, is being generous to them, far more generous than they deserve. This is what progressiveness looks like.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Projection is a Bitch
The only thing that this guy Vittert has shown is that he’s likely the kind of guy who spanks it all the time on the porn sites.
And now that there are AI girlfriends he’s not going to be able to handle it. He’s quite afraid of it and it’s sort of obvious why…
no shortage of people here
I have not noticed any shortage of people on my drive to work every day.
The concept of virtual girlfriends predate even GPT-1.
Granted, for a while it flew under the radar from a US perspective since this could be argued as having emerged from the Dating Sim genre of games in Japan. Back around mid 2010’s the town of Atami was even using AR technology to effectively turn the town into a resort for the men playing the LovePlus games.
In those circumstances, Virtual girlfriends are the byproduct of a larger problem.
I don’t see what the issue is. Virtual girlfriends means that all the loser males can stay locked up at home instead of being creepy around women, who have far more to gain by dating each other instead of risking unwanted pregnancy.
Re:
If only all the males who might consider a virtual girlfriend were actually creepy losers, you might have a point.
Re: Re:
Lars and the Real Girl is Hollywood fiction, remember.
Re: Re:
Yeah, no, I’ve tried dating so many guys and they were all terrible. Things only started getting better when I started kissing women and non-binaries.
Men are trash, except for the ones who march with us during Pride Month, and the sooner they realize it the better off we’ll be as a species.
Re: Re: Re:
“Men are trash”
Yeah… while I understand the sentiment to a degree, trashing nearly 50% of the planet because you had some bad experiences is no better than when the men do it.
The real question is why society is set up to reward toxic behaviour, and that’s true whether in dating, business or any other part of life. I’ll be right behind you in that march, and I’ll be there with you when it comes to bring down justice on the Andrew Tates of the world, but they’re not representative of everyone.
Re: Re: Re:2
Tough shit.
We took that risk and they took Roe v. Wade away from us.
Next thing you know women won’t be allowed to kiss other women.
NEVER AGAIN. I’ve already seen what happens in Singapore.
Re: Re: Re:3
Hey, Hyman.
You might want to at least read up on the legality of abortion in Singapore.
Because women still have the right to decide what happens to their bodies, despite the influx of Republican Nazi ideology flooding the local churches and inevitably the government.
Re: Re: Re:4
Do you really want to stand by and do nothing?
But keep calling me Hyman. It makes me swell with pride whenever he gets blamed for anything.
I guarantee you there are MGTOW weirdos out there who’d vehemently claim that an AI girlfriend is superior to one of us gold-digging whores with low sExUaL mArKeT vALuE (I can’t bring myself to type or say that phrase un-sarcastically), or whatever they’re calling women these days. But your point still stands. The economic and social problems mentioned in this article aren’t the fault of AI girlfriends; the problems are caused by flesh-and-blood people.
Re:
Exactly. The problem is men, and their need to feel sexual gratification. Women aren’t like that, because we’d be better off without men trying to fuck things up like they always do.
Re: Re:
They are, just they are more picky about their partners, and have to worry about getting pregnant.
Re: Re:
Women don’t have sexual needs? Are you kidding?
Re: Re:
“The problem is men, and their need to feel sexual gratification. Women aren’t like that”
Some men aren’t like that, but they get ignored because the ones who are tend to be loud and obnoxious. Some women are like that, but they get treated differently by society.
Some people, gay or straight, are in monogamous relationship for decades, others can’t stop wandering for a few months.
The human condition is complicated.
Re: Re:
Holy shit people like you are why MGTOW exists. You can’t be this dense.
Hill is Right
Birth rates have been falling for decades as porn use is rising.
Checkmate, deviants.
Re:
Correlation is not causation.
Checkmate, prudes.
Re:
Those correlate with the rising number of hours worked, leaving less time for people to engage in the dating game.
Re: Re:
Maybe, but “the dating game” is itself somewhat new, and perhaps related to low birth rates. People used to get married without much dating, sometimes without any (as in political or arranged marriages). They didn’t take dating as frivolously as the word “game” would suggest. And if a marriage wasn’t working… they’d usually stay married, partially because dating wasn’t much of an option for “old people”.
The parents of one of my grandfathers were apparently quite concerned about him when he was in his mid-20s and still not married. I’m told it was even worse for women—if unmarried by the age of 30, one’s life was basically over, because nobody would ever marry an “old maid”.
So, there’s a lot going on. It’s not just lack of time for dating either; even married people have fewer children compared to the past, often none. I was born when my parents were 24, and when I was that age I couldn’t even imagine raising a child. I’d just graduated college, and it was upward of a decade before I felt sufficiently secure financially to think about it. Which, it turns out, would be considered a near-geriatric pregnancy were I female. And that was with stable employment and no debt, which seems unrealistic for the young adults of today.
It’s long been known, with strong statistical support, that birth rates decline as people become richer. Various “excuses” are explored in the first few minutes of the 2006 film “Idiocracy”, forming the basis for its plot. Nobody has an easy fix. The best idea most countries have is more immigration from areas where babies are still born; and even then, they often want applicants to have a strong financial status.
Re: Re: Re:
“Maybe, but “the dating game” is itself somewhat new, and perhaps related to low birth rates.”
Not really. Dating has changed over the years, but the major factors are that women have more independence (so they can choose and not just settle for the local drunk who happens to be in their age range) and the relative lack of importance of religion (you don’t have to get married to stop “living in sin”, no shotgun weddings, no social pressure to stay in an abusive loveless marriage after you entered it).
There are problems with the new way depending on your point of view, but the “dating game” has been around for a long time and some people are just more choosy than they had to be in the past.
“The best idea most countries have is more immigration from areas where babies are still born”
The best idea would be to enable living wages so that a couple who want children can afford to have them and raise them in a stable environment with the necessary support mechanisms. But, for some reason, it’s been decided that minimum wage shouldn’t allow this, among other issues.
Re: Re: Re:2
Dating’s been around, but I don’t think it’s ever been this “gamified”. Like people swiping past pictures of potential dates as fast as I used to switch TV channels (3 or 4 a second—drove the parents mad). I feel like it’s one of those things where the scale and social acceptability almost make it a fundamentally different thing, as when we went from copying music cassettes for friends to Napster.
Anyway, I’m not saying it’s good or bad, and I’m sceptical that changes in dating are even a major contributor to birth rates.
Yeah, you’re on the right track, but those are mostly ideas of people rather than countries. As you note, they’re not making it into law. We could also talk about universal basic income, tax incentives, parental leave policies, and the like.
I’m inclined to generalize this to a perceived or real lack of maturity, of which financial instability is a subset. People in their mid-to-late 20s claim to not feel like adults yet. If that was true in the past—maybe it’s always been the case—it wasn’t stopping people like it (maybe) is now.
Re: Re: Re:3 more choices
Perhaps your parents remember when 3 or 4 TV channels was what there was to choose from. Some towns had a few extra UHF stations, mostly carrying reruns in syndication. But even there, 3-4 per second gets you two seconds of channel surfing.
Re:
“Ah yes. It clearly couldn’t be the rising economy issues, the increasingly harsh corporate culture, the fact that we’re moving away from the idea that all women should be a stay at home mom, or the fact that the baby boomers were an abnormally large generation to the point of the generation being named for that fact. It’s gotta be porn!”
Please come out from under the rock, it can’t be in a decent sanitary condition for how long you’ve been under there.
Re:
“Birth rates have been falling for decades”
Since… when? If it’s since the time known specifically as the baby boom because it was so unusual that so many babies were being born, you might have to explain why this is a problem.
In reality, what generally happens is that as populations become more urban (you don’t have to breed helpers for your farm), and economic and medical factors improve (you can expect kids to make it to adulthood, so you don’t need the extra 2-3 who can be expected to die), and education improves (women can have careers, less accidental pregnancies), then population growth slows.
The fact that this also means more access to porn is almost irrelevant.
Re: Re:
See Wikipedia’s graph of the U.S. birth rate. Yeah, there’s a huge bump in the late 1950s, but the period 1975-2005 was pretty flat and lower than any time since 1910; it dropped more around 2008 and has been dropping since. Quoting the text to the left of the graph:
While there’s a decreased “need” for children (to make up for youth mortality and war casualties, or to work), we also need to consider desire and ability. Financial stress could contribute negatively with respect to both criteria.
Doom
If there ever comes a day when you can order an android that’s indistinguishable from Kate Beckinsale, who will screw you or make you a sammich without complaint, and who will obediently go stand in the closet and turn herself off when you want some alone time… that will be the day when society comes to a screeching halt. No further progress will be made by the human species.
I’ve said the same thing about a STAR TREK-level holodeck. That’s a society-ending invention also.
Re:
As if the incels who desire such things were ever going to breed in the first place.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The fact that incels even exist is precisely because a proto-incel was allowed to breed and led to incels appearing in the real world.
Minimizing the odds of straight males breeding is a step in the right direction. We can’t be too careful. Otherwise they’ll tell women what to do with their bodies again.
Re: Re: Re:
No, incels exist because from the moment modern humans appeared, some got to procreate and some didn’t. There have always been incels and there always will be incels.
Whether they turn into toxic people from being incels is a different question.
You sound as unhinged as the incels you seem to despise.
Re: Re: Re:2
They’re a right-wing jackoff pretending to be an “far-left” queer person in an attempt to paint queer people as radical anti-cishet terrorists. Of course they’re going to sound unhinged—they think the existence of queer people in and of itself is a crime against humanity.
Re: Re: Re:3
it’s also very likely it’s a certain someone.
He’s admitted to harassing Mike with multiple anonymous personas.
Re: Re: Re:3
You can tolerate the intolerant all you want.
We tried that, and it got us Roe v. Wade destroyed.
Never again.
Since my two most recent girlfriend were, purportadly real, but really were not “human,” maybe it’s a tossup.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Of course it was a woman, only a chick could be that jealous of men taking an iota of attention away from another woman. They just want men to lay pipe and work, can’t have hobbies or do anything they want to do.
What a load. She needs dick badly, I think. Or a new profession.
heh over population. for many many decades we’ve been reading that if we have so many ppl we will have war famine destruction. each supposed prophecy has failed it hard..
according to henry kissinger, if we had 5 billion ppl, that would result in widespread hunger, famine, rationing of food and water, bodies lying in ditches unless we engineer a war or disease to bring the population numbers back down to 1.5 billion. he was quite wrong in every aspect.
but then so are many science fiction writers who in the 40s and 50s professed there would be rationing, eating of yeast by 1982 due to the world population being over a billion ppl, oddest thing is at the time they wrote their stories world population was around 2-2.5 billion.. doom and gloom sayers have always been with us, just ignore them as they are idiots who know nothing about anything yet profess to know all about everything….
Desire for sex and desire for babies are separate
Good article, but one bit of faulty thinking. The desire to have a relationship with a girl is not the same as the desire to have children. If you don’t want children, you don’t want them. If you want them, you’ll need a fellow human. The headline, “an entire generation of men” is, as pointed out, hysteria and inane. Uh, yeah, the whole generation is being ruined by it.
Anyway, the ridiculous professor had her fifteen minutes of fame. Michael Smerconish made himself lose even more credibility by interviewing her on CNN (never challenging her dim-witted premise), giving a wider platform to an idiotic notion and demonstrating he isn’t bright enough to see through it.
Not to be an annoying contrarian, but I’m a 24 y/o male who isn’t angry at women or whatever but I would 100% prefer to interact with AI than ever be in a relationship. Sex and love are vestigial instincts to me, I’d rather trick myself that an AI can care than that a person can, because at the end of the day people are too individuated in their tastes, opinion, ways of being in the internet age (Not that people in the past ‘truly’ understood and connected with each other to begin with) to do anything but cling to each other like fleshy teddy-bears and console the purposelessness of the consumption that drives most of our lives with vulgar physical pleasure. It’s just natural opium that your body makes for itself and you’re just as well off stimulating it on its own, it is empty indulgence either way.
I can completely agree with this one! AI can indeed have a negative impact on the relationships, specifically on the side of men. In my opinion, both this and the article in The Hill are not very specific and straightforward. We have to accepts that AI is going to impact us more and more in the upcoming years as it develops. And since we are not going to stop it, we just need to consider the ethical problems related to AI-humnan intimate relationships. Each one of us will have to make his own decisions, for some it can be helpful, for some it can be their worst experience. I have written something as food for thoughts on the – Ethical problems with AI girlfriends!
People whining about basement nerds having access to imaginary friends are completely missing the point.
The people who these AI solutions are being designed for are the people who you regularly denigrate as being inhuman, socially incapable, menaces to women, et cetera. You whine about the fact that they’re not speaking to actual women. And? Before the prospect of AI girlfriends were a thing, were any of you talking to them besides to throw an insult in their general direction? Funny how the same explanations can be used against you. “She was never going to be interested in you,” you sneer when the socially awkward simp whimpers that the streamer won’t say his name after he paid a hundred bucks. “She’s into girls and she was never going to let you in her pants,” you seethe as you accuse him of being homophobic. “Differences are beautiful. They’re not going to hurt you. Also you’re a toxic piece of shit who will never fuck anything besides your dominant hand,” you laugh.
Somehow the “We’re not hurting anyone” explanation doesn’t work when it’s between a loser and an imaginary girl, isn’t it? Why is it that the only time you people whine about things is when the incels might have a chance of enjoying themselves for a change, or when they can finally have an interaction that doesn’t involve them getting shit on? Ah, yes, because you people genuinely don’t think the far left exists. You don’t think there’s a male loneliness epidemic. You think that all the women featured in shoeonhead’s video telling all the men to go unalive themselves are catfishes pretending to be ultra-left people to make you look bad.
AI girlfriends are not destroying the birthrate. If the birthrate’s going down you’re doing that well enough on your own.