7 ms·

I know someone that has "resurrected" a dead relative through an llm, and I've seen the nonsense on forums about dating an "ai boyfriend"... Some people can't

by cbluth 1y ago

I know someone that has "resurrected" a dead relative through an llm, and I've seen the nonsense on forums about dating an "ai boyfriend"... Some people can't help themselves and don't use these tools appropriately.

dingnuts 1y ago
the good news is that this shit isn't sustainable. when investor funtime subsidies end, ain't nobody spending $2000/mo for an AI boyfriend. "but it's getting cheaper and cheaper to run inference" they say. To which I say: ok bud sure thing, this isn't a technology governed by Moore. We'll see.
- deadbabe 1y ago
  $2000? I see $4000/month minimum, roughly equivalent to what some typical Wall Street data feeds are priced at. It’s big business.
- nullc 1y ago
  It doesn't require a particularly powerful AI because the human's own hope is doing the heavy lifting. 70B models run juust fine on hardware you can have sitting under your desk.
- tokai 1y ago
  People have spend much more on pig butchering scam boyfriends that don't even exist. I bet you could get some people to pay quit a lot to keep what they see as their significant other alive.
- fullshark 1y ago
  Mental health issues in the population are never going away, people using software tools to prey on those with issues is never going away. Arguably the entire consumer software industry preys on addiction and poor impulse control already.
  - dingnuts 1y ago
    yeah, I know, I'm addicted to this hellhole of a site. I hate it but I still open it every five minutes. But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking specifically about people who've made a SoTA model their buddy, like the people who were sad when 4o disappeared. Users of character.ai. That sort of thing. It's going to get very, very expensive and provides very little value. People are struggling with rent. These services won't be able to survive, I hope, purely through causing psychosis in vulnerable people.
- valbaca 1y ago
  > ain't nobody spending $2000/mo for an AI boyfriend you haven't met the Whales (big spenders) in the loneliness-epidemic industry (e.g. OnlyFans and the like)
  - dingnuts 1y ago
    why would they stop paying for the attention of a real woman when the artificial alternative costs just as much?
    - AlexandrB 1y ago
      Both are fake. Do you think OnlyFans models are actually giving their customers their attention?
    - JohnMakin 1y ago
      On OF specifically, you are much more likely to be spending money talking to a bot that sends you sexy pics and messages than a real human being.
    - evilduck 1y ago
      Reliability and consistency? Humans have bad days. Humans have needs and can't be available 24/7/365 for years on end. OF creators burn out or grow up or lose interest or cash out and retire. It's not like the "real women" of OnlyFans are consistently real, or women. And there's some percentage that are already AI-by-proxy. There's definitely opportunity for someone to just skip the middleman.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- BoredPositron 1y ago
  When I was at a game studio for a big MMORPG I had the valuable experience sitting next to the monetization team. It was a third grade MMO with gacha mechanics our whales spend 20-30k every month... for years.
deadbabe 1y ago
Can you talk more about the resurrection? Did they train an LLM fine tune against as much written content as possible made by that person?
- nullc 1y ago
  That might actually be interesting if there were enough content, something of the "Beta" level AI's in Alastair Reynolds' revelation space books. But that isn't what I've seen done when people said they did that. Instead they just told ChatGPT a bit about the person and asked it to playact. The result was nothing like the person-- just the same pathetic ChatGPT persona, but in their confusion, grief, and vulnerability they thought it was a recreation of the deceased person. A particularly shocking and public example is the Jim Acosta interview of the simulacra of a parkland shooting victim.
MisterTea 1y ago
My friend admitted to having political and religious arguments with chatgpt. They have mental issues which contributed.
- beacon473 1y ago
  What's wrong with using an LLM to learn about politics and religion? I've found Claude to be an excellent tool to facilitate introspective psychoanalysis. Unlike most human therapists I've worked with, Claude will call me on my shit and won't be talked into agreeing with my neurotic fantasies (if prompted correctly).
  - BoredPositron 1y ago
    No you are gaslighting yourself without recognizing it. That's what we are talking about.
    - iinnPP 1y ago
      It's impossible to gaslight yourself as it requires intention.
      - BoredPositron 1y ago
        He wants to be called a good boy, so the LLM calls him a good boy. Since the LLM is a machine that does what you want, he's essentially doing it to himself. It might not be a conscious choice, but there's still intention behind it. Kein Herr im eigenen Haus. (No master in one's own house.) - Sigmund Freud. He was wrong about a lot of stuff but this is one thing that still stands. It's called unconscious intention, and here's a pretty interesting paper that'll bring you up to speed: https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=thesis https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&contex...
        iinnPP 1y ago
        I'm sure you can be unconsciously intent on things, but gaslighting is a unique concept. Here's the definition I am relying on: manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning. In your provided example, the user is obviously not trying to manipulate someone into questioning their sanity, nor power of reasoning. Quite the opposite. Lying to themselves (your example) for sure.

by cbluth 1y ago

dingnuts 1y ago

the good news is that this shit isn't sustainable. when investor funtime subsidies end, ain't nobody spending $2000/mo for an AI boyfriend. "but it's getting cheaper and cheaper to run inference" they say. To which I say: ok bud sure thing, this isn't a technology governed by Moore. We'll see.

deadbabe 1y ago
$2000? I see $4000/month minimum, roughly equivalent to what some typical Wall Street data feeds are priced at. It’s big business.
nullc 1y ago
It doesn't require a particularly powerful AI because the human's own hope is doing the heavy lifting. 70B models run juust fine on hardware you can have sitting under your desk.
tokai 1y ago
People have spend much more on pig butchering scam boyfriends that don't even exist. I bet you could get some people to pay quit a lot to keep what they see as their significant other alive.
fullshark 1y ago
Mental health issues in the population are never going away, people using software tools to prey on those with issues is never going away. Arguably the entire consumer software industry preys on addiction and poor impulse control already.
- dingnuts 1y ago
  yeah, I know, I'm addicted to this hellhole of a site. I hate it but I still open it every five minutes. But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking specifically about people who've made a SoTA model their buddy, like the people who were sad when 4o disappeared. Users of character.ai. That sort of thing. It's going to get very, very expensive and provides very little value. People are struggling with rent. These services won't be able to survive, I hope, purely through causing psychosis in vulnerable people.
valbaca 1y ago
> ain't nobody spending $2000/mo for an AI boyfriend you haven't met the Whales (big spenders) in the loneliness-epidemic industry (e.g. OnlyFans and the like)
- dingnuts 1y ago
  why would they stop paying for the attention of a real woman when the artificial alternative costs just as much?
  - AlexandrB 1y ago
    Both are fake. Do you think OnlyFans models are actually giving their customers their attention?
  - JohnMakin 1y ago
    On OF specifically, you are much more likely to be spending money talking to a bot that sends you sexy pics and messages than a real human being.
  - evilduck 1y ago
    Reliability and consistency? Humans have bad days. Humans have needs and can't be available 24/7/365 for years on end. OF creators burn out or grow up or lose interest or cash out and retire. It's not like the "real women" of OnlyFans are consistently real, or women. And there's some percentage that are already AI-by-proxy. There's definitely opportunity for someone to just skip the middleman.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
BoredPositron 1y ago
When I was at a game studio for a big MMORPG I had the valuable experience sitting next to the monetization team. It was a third grade MMO with gacha mechanics our whales spend 20-30k every month... for years.

deadbabe 1y ago

Can you talk more about the resurrection? Did they train an LLM fine tune against as much written content as possible made by that person?

nullc 1y ago
That might actually be interesting if there were enough content, something of the "Beta" level AI's in Alastair Reynolds' revelation space books. But that isn't what I've seen done when people said they did that. Instead they just told ChatGPT a bit about the person and asked it to playact. The result was nothing like the person-- just the same pathetic ChatGPT persona, but in their confusion, grief, and vulnerability they thought it was a recreation of the deceased person. A particularly shocking and public example is the Jim Acosta interview of the simulacra of a parkland shooting victim.

MisterTea 1y ago

My friend admitted to having political and religious arguments with chatgpt. They have mental issues which contributed.

beacon473 1y ago
What's wrong with using an LLM to learn about politics and religion? I've found Claude to be an excellent tool to facilitate introspective psychoanalysis. Unlike most human therapists I've worked with, Claude will call me on my shit and won't be talked into agreeing with my neurotic fantasies (if prompted correctly).
- BoredPositron 1y ago
  No you are gaslighting yourself without recognizing it. That's what we are talking about.
  - iinnPP 1y ago
    It's impossible to gaslight yourself as it requires intention.
    - BoredPositron 1y ago
      He wants to be called a good boy, so the LLM calls him a good boy. Since the LLM is a machine that does what you want, he's essentially doing it to himself. It might not be a conscious choice, but there's still intention behind it. Kein Herr im eigenen Haus. (No master in one's own house.) - Sigmund Freud. He was wrong about a lot of stuff but this is one thing that still stands. It's called unconscious intention, and here's a pretty interesting paper that'll bring you up to speed: https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=thesis https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&contex...
      - iinnPP 1y ago
        I'm sure you can be unconsciously intent on things, but gaslighting is a unique concept. Here's the definition I am relying on: manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning. In your provided example, the user is obviously not trying to manipulate someone into questioning their sanity, nor power of reasoning. Quite the opposite. Lying to themselves (your example) for sure.