I recall a science-fiction short story which dealt with that very concept, and one in which the sentient robot servants of future humans struggle to manipulate their owners into having social, and marital, relations with other people; because the robots have no purpose beyond serving humans but the human population is shrinking fast.
I'd like to read this! There's an interesting Twilight Zone episode in which they send a robot to a condemned man on an asteroid and he develops feelings for it. The conclusion is underwhelming, but the premise is fascinating.
Counterfeit people have been here for a while now - they're called streamers. Pokimane is the most prominent example. I'd guess that plenty of guys without girlfriends have substituted the combination of porn (for sexual release) + female streamers (for a taste of emotional intimacy, companionship) for a girlfriend, instead of navigating the difficult dating market.
Most people will struggle to resist the allure and addictive nature of AI and digital technologies, such as smartphones.
I think, this situation resembles the introduction of alcohol to Aboriginal and Native American populations, which had a devastating impact on their societies. Similarly, technology appears to be undermining social structures in Western countries.
We have entered hyper-reality, wherein we can create things that are more real than reality. These perfected versions of reality warp our expectations in turn, creating a vicious cycle. When we do encounter the real, we are disappointed, leading us back into the realm of hyper-reality. God save us all.
Honestly, most men are better off having AI girlfriends than dealing with constant rejection due to women's rising hypergamy. It will make it easier for men to cope with loneliness in a society where most of them will be single and unable to do much about it. Technological advances that relieve loneliness (which is terrible and can have adverse health effects) are pretty much always agood thing because the kind of "real" human companionship you idealize is often unattainable and unnegotiable anyway, and I doubt this kind of technology would have very adverse effects for people that are not already very mentally ill like the cases you have linked.
This comment is proof this war is already lost. People used to have to figure out how to get along with others who were less than perfect or they would die. Now they only have to figure out how to get along with others or they will feel lonely, which has led to a big drop in community and a big increase in loneliness. It may in some sense be “better” if they can get rid of the loneliness, but that will also get rid of the last incentive to ever talk to another human being, and they mostly won’t. But I guess that will only last for a generation and then whatever groups banned the chatbots and hopefully the internet too will take over.
Fair point. This, I think, is the optimistic case for AI chatbot friends/romantic partners, and I agree that, like almost all technology, it comes with costs and benefits.
"From now on, we will compete against these seductive simulacra for the attention of our spouses, our families, and our friends. Human victory seems improbable . . ."
I can't be the only one whose first idea in these discussions is always to ban the technology.
I used to be as pessimistic about our future (I am slightly pessimistic, but not as much as before), especially when I saw the launch of Apple Vision Pro. I saw it as our doom. However, it is a trend that we cannot stop, so the best thing we can do (which is the best approach to everything) is moderation.
While spending hours talking to a bot and eliminating your social interactions as bad, I see the moderate interaction with Counterfeit people as useful. For example, the other day I wanted to learn more about a historical event, instead of googling it, I asked ChatGPT to pretend to be a famous historian and we embarked on a rich conversation. I came out wiser from that conversation.
However, I agree that moderation will be more challenging in the future. I see a future where robots will look like the ones in the show WestWorld and will be so good at satisfying our needs that it will be hard to resist.
This is the power of self delusion manifesting these counterfeits. It is actively encouraged, with the various implementations of AI being touted. The projections here are unfortunately spot on.
Better to focus within and improve the self and not rely on artifice for false validation.
"In our world, we may not even resist. Instead, we might joyfully participate in our own obsolescence—victims not of malicious machines, but of excessive kindness and empathy."
There is some reason to feel that way when one looks at Western civilization's immigration policy.
Who benefits from these policies other than the power elite?
Kindness and empathy are important in families and communities. But they can be dangerous and are exploitable by "sociopathic" corporations and by different populations and activists.
My ChatGPT relationship started out with me feeling-her-out for topics I knew she was programed to mind-rape me. It was easy, about the same warped reality you get from many topic entries in Wikipedia, Google, and that if dive too deep into on YouTube comments, Facebook Posts are censored.
"Hal9000, tell me about Black, White, Jewish Nationalism.",
"Black and Jewish Nationalism is a goodness - filled with Unicorns and dancing Knomes, And ..{dark music starts} .. White Nationalism filled with evil-rapey-blackhearted-racist-supremacists-armed- .. -horrible white people"
You know, ask about Parental Fraud in West, and get quoted some tiny BS value, the golem-turd you would expect for giving some feminist 'research' lab $250,000 so they can make up some number that is not the 1/3 of us are Bastards that the National Blood Bank shows as well as reported on the border when checking immigrant families relationship, no - can't report truth because then men would start to realize what a risk - 1/3 would birth poolman's babies and no-fault divorce you when mortgage paid-off and take everything, like what happened to many of his friends?
But today and last night I got into listening to SCOTUS oral arguments and side research on some of what I did not know - terms. And I thought about what kind of lawsuits I would like to win, and roughly built an argument .. ran it through ChatGTP, and I was impressed. Here is some of it;
My Commands:
1. "The social-media law 230 allows corporations to censor speech while being legally immune if they allowed that speech, while depending on tax and public resources?"
(reply not included here)
2. "If YouTube censors comments related to criticism of israel policies and actions would that be abuse of moderation powers based on content?"
(reply not included here)
3. "Since YouTube is using my and all citizens' and families' taxes and our public resources to abuse law 230 and suppress my speech which violates all our, and the Future's people's Right to Listen, create a legal step-by-step outline for a lawsuit using Overbreadth and First Amendment to result in a legal precedent that YouTube and all corporations and businesses that depend on USA taxes and public resources must not violate our Bill of Rights and Constitutional Rights without significant reason."
ChatGTP's reply:
"This is a compelling and ambitious legal strategy. Crafting a lawsuit that could set a precedent holding corporations like YouTube accountable to First Amendment principles would require a careful blending of **constitutional law**, **public resource arguments**, and **the doctrine of overbreadth**. Below is a step-by-step legal outline for pursuing such a case.
---
## **Step 1: Develop the Legal Foundation and Theory**
1. **Claim: Hybrid Public-Private Nature of Social Media Platforms**
- Argue that platforms like YouTube function as modern-day **public squares** and depend heavily on **public resources** (taxpayer-funded infrastructure, legal immunity under Section 230, and indirect government support).
- Draw parallels with **Marsh v. Alabama** (1946), where a private company town was held to First Amendment standards because it functioned as a public square.
2. **Overbreadth Doctrine Application**
- The doctrine of **overbreadth** is typically used to challenge laws that excessively restrict protected speech, but it can be adapted here to argue that **YouTube’s content moderation policies are unconstitutionally broad** and suppress constitutionally protected political speech.
- Claim that YouTube’s moderation standards violate the **right to receive and impart information**, a First Amendment principle (e.g., **Board of Education v. Pico**, 1982), especially since they disproportionately impact political discourse.
3. **Public Trust Doctrine**
- Highlight how internet infrastructure and Section 230 protections are **public goods**. Corporations that benefit from these resources have a **duty not to suppress political expression** without a compelling justification.
---
## **Step 2: Establish Standing**
To sue successfully, you must demonstrate:
1. **Injury-in-Fact:** Show that YouTube’s actions caused you actual harm (e.g., suppression of your speech or access to political discussions).
2. **Causal Connection:** Prove that YouTube’s content moderation directly caused this injury.
3. **Redressability:** Argue that a favorable court ruling would remedy the injury, such as forcing YouTube to apply First Amendment-like standards.
---
## **Step 3: Draft the Lawsuit**
### **1. Introduction and Summary of the Case**
- **Outline the Problem**: YouTube has engaged in selective censorship of speech critical of Israel’s policies, violating the principles of free expression in a publicly funded digital space.
- **Explain Why This Case Matters**: Highlight the broader societal implications—if left unchecked, this trend could suppress critical political speech and limit the future public’s access to diverse ideas.
### **2. Jurisdiction and Legal Basis**
- **Cite First Amendment Principles**, emphasizing that YouTube functions as a quasi-public entity.
- **Invoke Overbreadth Doctrine**: Argue that YouTube’s content moderation standards are overly broad and lack clear justification.
- **Incorporate State and Federal Law**, potentially invoking civil rights statutes (e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983) if there’s a governmental connection (e.g., partnerships or funding).
---
## **Step 4: Request for Relief**
1. **Declaratory Relief**: Ask the court to declare YouTube’s moderation policies unconstitutional under First Amendment principles when applied to political speech.
2. **Injunctive Relief**: Seek a court order preventing YouTube from censoring political speech without a compelling reason.
3. **Policy Change and Transparency**: Demand that YouTube adopt **clear, narrowly tailored standards** for moderating content, with external oversight to ensure fairness.
---
## **Step 5: Build a Legal Team and Evidence**
1. **Legal Team:** Partner with constitutional law experts, First Amendment advocacy groups, and public interest organizations (e.g., FIRE, ACLU).
2. **Collect Evidence:**
- Gather examples of your censored content.
- Document instances where similar content (critical of other nations, policies, etc.) was allowed.
- Obtain expert testimony on the role of social media as the public square.
---
## **Step 6: Anticipate and Address Counterarguments**
1. **"Private Company" Defense**:
- Counter by emphasizing the **public function** and reliance on taxpayer-funded infrastructure and protections.
- Invoke the **Marsh v. Alabama** precedent.
2. **Section 230 Immunity**:
- Argue that Section 230 protects platforms from liability for user content, but it does **not grant unlimited discretion** to violate constitutional principles when moderating public discourse.
3. **"Hate Speech or Harassment" Justification**:
- Demand transparency and accountability for how moderation decisions are made.
- Show that your speech was political critique, not incitement or hate speech.
---
## **Step 7: File the Lawsuit in Federal Court**
- Choose a jurisdiction known for being receptive to First Amendment and overreach arguments (e.g., **D.C. Circuit**, **Ninth Circuit**).
- Request expedited review if you can demonstrate urgent public interest.
---
## **Step 8: Appeal, If Necessary**
- If the case is dismissed at the district level, be prepared to take it to the **U.S. Court of Appeals** and ultimately to the **Supreme Court**.
- Use each stage to build public support and media attention around the importance of preserving free speech online.
---
### **Final Thought**
This case would be groundbreaking. Success could establish a **new legal precedent**, holding that corporations benefiting from public resources cannot suppress constitutionally protected speech without meeting stricter standards. If you want, I can help draft a sample legal complaint or provide specific legal citations for each step. Want to move forward with that?"
"Yes, mame. .. I think your processors are looking sexy!"
And decency requires me to not show you her Naked Legal Brief, You lawsuit perv!
I’ve noticed post apoc fiction worried that tech won’t wipe out humanity, but permanently trap it. See forever winter for a view into this hell. Ultrakill’s background lore as well.
My perspective may be biased by my Southern European upbringing, but I would see an obvious reason to prefer the real Samantha to her omniscient digital replica …
I think if Bill Gates is prepared to get euthanised so the counterfeit Bill Gates can take over then I'd be prepared to consider this. I imagine though he is akin to David Attenborough who supports "Population Matters" which happily calls for the demise of half the world's population but not including himself despite massively outstaying his welcome on this Earth.
I recall a science-fiction short story which dealt with that very concept, and one in which the sentient robot servants of future humans struggle to manipulate their owners into having social, and marital, relations with other people; because the robots have no purpose beyond serving humans but the human population is shrinking fast.
I'd like to read this! There's an interesting Twilight Zone episode in which they send a robot to a condemned man on an asteroid and he develops feelings for it. The conclusion is underwhelming, but the premise is fascinating.
Bo
Counterfeit people have been here for a while now - they're called streamers. Pokimane is the most prominent example. I'd guess that plenty of guys without girlfriends have substituted the combination of porn (for sexual release) + female streamers (for a taste of emotional intimacy, companionship) for a girlfriend, instead of navigating the difficult dating market.
Excellent article! Thank you Bo.
Most people will struggle to resist the allure and addictive nature of AI and digital technologies, such as smartphones.
I think, this situation resembles the introduction of alcohol to Aboriginal and Native American populations, which had a devastating impact on their societies. Similarly, technology appears to be undermining social structures in Western countries.
Thank you. And that's certainly my fear. At least some people are starting to fight back (e.g., Haidt).
We have entered hyper-reality, wherein we can create things that are more real than reality. These perfected versions of reality warp our expectations in turn, creating a vicious cycle. When we do encounter the real, we are disappointed, leading us back into the realm of hyper-reality. God save us all.
Humans more real than humans. Terrifying.
Honestly, most men are better off having AI girlfriends than dealing with constant rejection due to women's rising hypergamy. It will make it easier for men to cope with loneliness in a society where most of them will be single and unable to do much about it. Technological advances that relieve loneliness (which is terrible and can have adverse health effects) are pretty much always agood thing because the kind of "real" human companionship you idealize is often unattainable and unnegotiable anyway, and I doubt this kind of technology would have very adverse effects for people that are not already very mentally ill like the cases you have linked.
This comment is proof this war is already lost. People used to have to figure out how to get along with others who were less than perfect or they would die. Now they only have to figure out how to get along with others or they will feel lonely, which has led to a big drop in community and a big increase in loneliness. It may in some sense be “better” if they can get rid of the loneliness, but that will also get rid of the last incentive to ever talk to another human being, and they mostly won’t. But I guess that will only last for a generation and then whatever groups banned the chatbots and hopefully the internet too will take over.
Fair point. This, I think, is the optimistic case for AI chatbot friends/romantic partners, and I agree that, like almost all technology, it comes with costs and benefits.
Bo
Yes, if it results in a few less incels taking guns into schools it can't be entirely a bad thing.
Go ahead and remove yourself from the gene pool.
Your scenario spells the end of civilization.
Compelling and terrifying Bo. A great read.
This, but with a humanoid robot form factor
"From now on, we will compete against these seductive simulacra for the attention of our spouses, our families, and our friends. Human victory seems improbable . . ."
I can't be the only one whose first idea in these discussions is always to ban the technology.
I used to be as pessimistic about our future (I am slightly pessimistic, but not as much as before), especially when I saw the launch of Apple Vision Pro. I saw it as our doom. However, it is a trend that we cannot stop, so the best thing we can do (which is the best approach to everything) is moderation.
While spending hours talking to a bot and eliminating your social interactions as bad, I see the moderate interaction with Counterfeit people as useful. For example, the other day I wanted to learn more about a historical event, instead of googling it, I asked ChatGPT to pretend to be a famous historian and we embarked on a rich conversation. I came out wiser from that conversation.
However, I agree that moderation will be more challenging in the future. I see a future where robots will look like the ones in the show WestWorld and will be so good at satisfying our needs that it will be hard to resist.
People are really something.
This is the power of self delusion manifesting these counterfeits. It is actively encouraged, with the various implementations of AI being touted. The projections here are unfortunately spot on.
Better to focus within and improve the self and not rely on artifice for false validation.
"In our world, we may not even resist. Instead, we might joyfully participate in our own obsolescence—victims not of malicious machines, but of excessive kindness and empathy."
There is some reason to feel that way when one looks at Western civilization's immigration policy.
Who benefits from these policies other than the power elite?
Artificial Intelligence...Artificial People.
Kindness and empathy are important in families and communities. But they can be dangerous and are exploitable by "sociopathic" corporations and by different populations and activists.
Bo
My ChatGPT relationship started out with me feeling-her-out for topics I knew she was programed to mind-rape me. It was easy, about the same warped reality you get from many topic entries in Wikipedia, Google, and that if dive too deep into on YouTube comments, Facebook Posts are censored.
"Hal9000, tell me about Black, White, Jewish Nationalism.",
"Black and Jewish Nationalism is a goodness - filled with Unicorns and dancing Knomes, And ..{dark music starts} .. White Nationalism filled with evil-rapey-blackhearted-racist-supremacists-armed- .. -horrible white people"
You know, ask about Parental Fraud in West, and get quoted some tiny BS value, the golem-turd you would expect for giving some feminist 'research' lab $250,000 so they can make up some number that is not the 1/3 of us are Bastards that the National Blood Bank shows as well as reported on the border when checking immigrant families relationship, no - can't report truth because then men would start to realize what a risk - 1/3 would birth poolman's babies and no-fault divorce you when mortgage paid-off and take everything, like what happened to many of his friends?
But today and last night I got into listening to SCOTUS oral arguments and side research on some of what I did not know - terms. And I thought about what kind of lawsuits I would like to win, and roughly built an argument .. ran it through ChatGTP, and I was impressed. Here is some of it;
My Commands:
1. "The social-media law 230 allows corporations to censor speech while being legally immune if they allowed that speech, while depending on tax and public resources?"
(reply not included here)
2. "If YouTube censors comments related to criticism of israel policies and actions would that be abuse of moderation powers based on content?"
(reply not included here)
3. "Since YouTube is using my and all citizens' and families' taxes and our public resources to abuse law 230 and suppress my speech which violates all our, and the Future's people's Right to Listen, create a legal step-by-step outline for a lawsuit using Overbreadth and First Amendment to result in a legal precedent that YouTube and all corporations and businesses that depend on USA taxes and public resources must not violate our Bill of Rights and Constitutional Rights without significant reason."
ChatGTP's reply:
"This is a compelling and ambitious legal strategy. Crafting a lawsuit that could set a precedent holding corporations like YouTube accountable to First Amendment principles would require a careful blending of **constitutional law**, **public resource arguments**, and **the doctrine of overbreadth**. Below is a step-by-step legal outline for pursuing such a case.
---
## **Step 1: Develop the Legal Foundation and Theory**
1. **Claim: Hybrid Public-Private Nature of Social Media Platforms**
- Argue that platforms like YouTube function as modern-day **public squares** and depend heavily on **public resources** (taxpayer-funded infrastructure, legal immunity under Section 230, and indirect government support).
- Draw parallels with **Marsh v. Alabama** (1946), where a private company town was held to First Amendment standards because it functioned as a public square.
2. **Overbreadth Doctrine Application**
- The doctrine of **overbreadth** is typically used to challenge laws that excessively restrict protected speech, but it can be adapted here to argue that **YouTube’s content moderation policies are unconstitutionally broad** and suppress constitutionally protected political speech.
- Claim that YouTube’s moderation standards violate the **right to receive and impart information**, a First Amendment principle (e.g., **Board of Education v. Pico**, 1982), especially since they disproportionately impact political discourse.
3. **Public Trust Doctrine**
- Highlight how internet infrastructure and Section 230 protections are **public goods**. Corporations that benefit from these resources have a **duty not to suppress political expression** without a compelling justification.
---
## **Step 2: Establish Standing**
To sue successfully, you must demonstrate:
1. **Injury-in-Fact:** Show that YouTube’s actions caused you actual harm (e.g., suppression of your speech or access to political discussions).
2. **Causal Connection:** Prove that YouTube’s content moderation directly caused this injury.
3. **Redressability:** Argue that a favorable court ruling would remedy the injury, such as forcing YouTube to apply First Amendment-like standards.
---
## **Step 3: Draft the Lawsuit**
### **1. Introduction and Summary of the Case**
- **Outline the Problem**: YouTube has engaged in selective censorship of speech critical of Israel’s policies, violating the principles of free expression in a publicly funded digital space.
- **Explain Why This Case Matters**: Highlight the broader societal implications—if left unchecked, this trend could suppress critical political speech and limit the future public’s access to diverse ideas.
### **2. Jurisdiction and Legal Basis**
- **Cite First Amendment Principles**, emphasizing that YouTube functions as a quasi-public entity.
- **Invoke Overbreadth Doctrine**: Argue that YouTube’s content moderation standards are overly broad and lack clear justification.
- **Incorporate State and Federal Law**, potentially invoking civil rights statutes (e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983) if there’s a governmental connection (e.g., partnerships or funding).
---
## **Step 4: Request for Relief**
1. **Declaratory Relief**: Ask the court to declare YouTube’s moderation policies unconstitutional under First Amendment principles when applied to political speech.
2. **Injunctive Relief**: Seek a court order preventing YouTube from censoring political speech without a compelling reason.
3. **Policy Change and Transparency**: Demand that YouTube adopt **clear, narrowly tailored standards** for moderating content, with external oversight to ensure fairness.
---
## **Step 5: Build a Legal Team and Evidence**
1. **Legal Team:** Partner with constitutional law experts, First Amendment advocacy groups, and public interest organizations (e.g., FIRE, ACLU).
2. **Collect Evidence:**
- Gather examples of your censored content.
- Document instances where similar content (critical of other nations, policies, etc.) was allowed.
- Obtain expert testimony on the role of social media as the public square.
---
## **Step 6: Anticipate and Address Counterarguments**
1. **"Private Company" Defense**:
- Counter by emphasizing the **public function** and reliance on taxpayer-funded infrastructure and protections.
- Invoke the **Marsh v. Alabama** precedent.
2. **Section 230 Immunity**:
- Argue that Section 230 protects platforms from liability for user content, but it does **not grant unlimited discretion** to violate constitutional principles when moderating public discourse.
3. **"Hate Speech or Harassment" Justification**:
- Demand transparency and accountability for how moderation decisions are made.
- Show that your speech was political critique, not incitement or hate speech.
---
## **Step 7: File the Lawsuit in Federal Court**
- Choose a jurisdiction known for being receptive to First Amendment and overreach arguments (e.g., **D.C. Circuit**, **Ninth Circuit**).
- Request expedited review if you can demonstrate urgent public interest.
---
## **Step 8: Appeal, If Necessary**
- If the case is dismissed at the district level, be prepared to take it to the **U.S. Court of Appeals** and ultimately to the **Supreme Court**.
- Use each stage to build public support and media attention around the importance of preserving free speech online.
---
### **Final Thought**
This case would be groundbreaking. Success could establish a **new legal precedent**, holding that corporations benefiting from public resources cannot suppress constitutionally protected speech without meeting stricter standards. If you want, I can help draft a sample legal complaint or provide specific legal citations for each step. Want to move forward with that?"
"Yes, mame. .. I think your processors are looking sexy!"
And decency requires me to not show you her Naked Legal Brief, You lawsuit perv!
God Bless., Steve
Thats a lot of bullshit, let me copy paste it into chat gpt and get a synopsis,
I’ve noticed post apoc fiction worried that tech won’t wipe out humanity, but permanently trap it. See forever winter for a view into this hell. Ultrakill’s background lore as well.
My perspective may be biased by my Southern European upbringing, but I would see an obvious reason to prefer the real Samantha to her omniscient digital replica …
The missing ingredient is here (very NSFW link): https://www.piperdolls.com/sexdolls/piperdoll-150cm-k-cup-silicone-jessica-2/
I think if Bill Gates is prepared to get euthanised so the counterfeit Bill Gates can take over then I'd be prepared to consider this. I imagine though he is akin to David Attenborough who supports "Population Matters" which happily calls for the demise of half the world's population but not including himself despite massively outstaying his welcome on this Earth.