People in 2024 aren’t just swiping right and left on online dating apps — some are crafting their perfect AI match and entering relationships with chatbots.

Eric Schmidt, Google’s former CEO, recently shared his concerns about young men creating AI romantic partners and said he believes that AI dating will actually increase loneliness.

“This is a good example of an unexpected problem of existing technology,” Schmidt said in a conversation about AI dangers and regulation on “The Prof G Show” with Scott Galloway released Sunday.

Schmidt said an emotionally and physically “perfect” AI girlfriendcould create a scenario in which a younger male becomes obsessed and allows the AI to take over their thinking.

“That kind of obsession is possible,” Schmidt said in the interview. “Especially for people who are not fully formed.”

  • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I personally agree that this is a kind of a regulator.

    Like what Tao Te Ching says. Humans shouldn’t have too much of what they desire. Such a reality in some area fails them as an opportunity to learn. It’s also a dead end - you can’t have children with a robot. You can’t grow children with a robot, or maybe you can, but it will not be sufficiently complex and it will have different criteria of success.

    But this doesn’t limit advanced civilization.

    It’s just that in these things we are trying to cheat. Advancement to AGI, if it ever happens, should be done in its own turn. We have means to solve a lot of purely technical problems, but we haven’t yet. There’s no reason to hurry with AGI.

    The reason Europe has conquered the world was that European cultures had this respect to simplicity, born from Christian morality, but also respect to choice and logic. Remove any one of these three, and you lose that power.

    Europeans had sometimes less sophisticated technologies in any particular area than, say, China or Safavid Persia or Ottomans or Southeast Asian nations or even at some point some African nations. But what they had was complete and comprehensive system, civilization as a whole. They always had the lower level of the building finished before going to the next one.

    This was due to that Christian modesty combined with antique philosophy.

    I also think we’ve diverted from that relatively recently - around the dotcom bubble crash, maybe. I think it had deeper implications than what people think, because the trust into said philosophy started eroding at that very point. Which created imbalance in favor of forces less affected, like Microsoft and others, who have eroded it further, and the “good” forces, like Sun or Compaq or Motorola or what not, have contributed more into it with their attempts to survive after the 90s than they would if they’d die with the crash immediately, because they showed the public something that looked like a loss in honest competition.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      Like what Tao Te Ching says. Humans shouldn’t have too much of what they desire.

      Actually, quite the opposite: Empty spirit, full stomachs, weak will, strong bones. Will as in “determination, aspiration, ambition”, not as in the opposite of demure. Same difference as pride vs. dignity. The idea is to fulfil all base desires and devalue the fickle and temporary to nip strive and competition in the bud. The answer to “People are spending money they don’t have on things they don’t need to impress people they don’t like” isn’t to preach asceticism, isn’t to leave desires unfulfilled, it’s teaching that that’s not a desire it’s a neurosis: Humans should have all they desire, problem is many don’t know what that is because they’ve been conditioned to consider contentedness shameful, instead of a base desire. What you actually want is food, shelter, health, family and friends, peace, song and exercise, being there for others as they’re there for you.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I, ahem, meant something like

        Will as in “determination, aspiration, ambition”,

        by desire, but probably have lost the initial thought a few times when typing this.

        What you actually want is food, shelter, health, family and friends, peace, song and exercise, being there for others as they’re there for you.

        But you don’t want a painting of a friend instead of a friend.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          But you don’t want a painting of a friend instead of a friend.

          Want, no, but it can fool some subsystems. Not all though so it’ll start to feel empty and then you either move on to touch grass or become neurotic.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Well, that’s what I meant. Our civilization has become seriously invested into a few simulacra at once. Using that to replace frustration with a smaller (but very attractive) simulacrum that couldn’t be maintained anymore 20+ years ago.

            “Touching grass” will be painful.