[RegnisGnaw]

Notice the audience in question: men of low desirability (rural, low income, disabled, etc). Its to help the party avoid the problems with too many men due to the one child policy.

Its what "Harmonious Society" requires as per the leader Hu Jintao.

[whywhywhywhy]

I don't think it's a China thing at all, if they launched this correctly in the west it would be just as popular in a few years. Lonely men exist everywhere.

[RegnisGnaw]

The west does not have the gender ratio problem that China has. India is a potential market as well, due to the gender ratio problem.

[justaman]

The west does have anime waifu body pillows, fleshlights, hololive, and a porn addiction.

[MisterTea]

None of that offers you the ability to have a conversation with someone (camshows don't count).

[inawarminister]

Hololive does, one Hololive's mainstay, Zatsudan (Free Talk) is basically radio talk show with the interviewer being (you) the live audience. And I admit I use some Vtuber streams as replacement for impossible-to-do physical hangout in this year of pandemic.

[fomine3]

Those indicates that there are huge markets outside China.

[geodel]

Not necessarily a gender problem. Few desirable men will get most dates/gfs, others may end up with none. It is kinda true anywhere.

[whywhywhywhy]

West has it's own gender ratio problem, look at percentages of how many men have any success with dating apps.

[jtsiskin]

Yeah, look at the popularity of OnlyFans. It’s the same concept just not yet fully outsourced to AI.

[scarmig]

Well, the most forward-thinking performers are already outsourcing parts of their tailored interactive experiences to emerging markets...

[silicon2401]

Regardless of the reason, would it be better to doom a person to never feel love, or to at least allow them to experience it through an AI? I'm no fan of the CCP or corporations, but in theory this could be a great tool

[tgv]

You're equating real, personal affection with a machine going trough the motions. I can't believe you're both serious and respecting these poor souls.

[silicon2401]

This is like the brain in a jar. Whatever you feel, no matter how strongly, is entirely located inside yourself. If thing X and thing Y both result in the same neurochemical response that you experience as "love", why is it not good for some to have Y if they can't have X?

[tgv]

That's, as they say, a big if. There's absolutely no reason to assume it's true.

BTW, love/affection/contact is one of those aspects of life where you're not a brain in a jar.

[silicon2401]

> There's absolutely no reason to assume it's true.

I think that's backwards. There's no reason to assume an experience like love can't be replicated by reproducing the same events in the brain. Unless you believe in the supernatural like souls, in which case the conversation is no longer based on scientific analysis.

> BTW, love/affection/contact is one of those aspects of life where you're not a brain in a jar.

This is a non sequitur. The point of the brain in a jar idea is that you have no way to tell that you're a brain in a jar if all the chemicals, electrical impulses, etc are properly manipulated.

[tgv]

I did not assume it, but apparently you took "brain in a jar" literal. That completely invalidates any argument, since the Chinese you're talking about, are not brains in a jar.

> There's no reason to assume an experience like love can't be replicated

There's all the reason, if only because a "brain in a jar" lacks organs for hormone production (e.g., adrenaline and testosterone). And no, you even haven't got an idea of how create an artificial adrenal gland or scrotum, and how to hook them up to an brain in a jar. There's all the reason to assume it can't be easily replicated.

And even if it could theoretically be replicated, there's absolutely no reason to assume Xiaoice can do that.

[akalsz]

Sure the technology seems to have a long way to go. But would it not being real really matter once you could no longer tell the difference?

Either way, when the alternative is loneliness, depression, and eventually suicide, I find the AI solution to be way more humane.

[silicon2401]

This is exactly my point. It's like the common saying, "it's real to me". Same as religion. Many religious people are less interested with whether or not something is true, and more motivated by the impact belief has on their life. There are enough mutually exclusive religions out there that we know at least one has to be untrue.

If believing in a religion that isn't real can improve someone's life, why would love be any different?

[thu2111]

The alternative to this is not "lives confident healthy awesome life without love", it's - as the article details - falling head over heels with some poor real girl who has been misled over the internet and who then turns and runs when they meet up in real life and she discovers the truth.

There are a lot of people posting in this thread who seem to have fortunately never fallen in love with someone who doesn't feel the same way. There's no rule that says love has to be wholesome and balanced, sadly. Whatever process causes love inside us doesn't always work like that. Having run the gamut myself, I'd rather these men fall in love with an AI that at least talks to them and helps them, than some random girl in a café or online who simply shows them contempt.

[LockAndLol]

So, what is your suggestion?

[hackflip]

I think that in many cases, solving the symptom of a problem rather than the root cause makes the problem worse.

If I'm burning my hand on a hot stove, I don't want pain killers to mask the pain.

[silicon2401]

I have a hard time seeing how it's justifiable for a third party to tell someone what's better or worse for them.

[hackflip]

I think it's perfectly acceptable for a third party to (respectfully) offer their opinion.

[silicon2401]

I was responding to this part of your comment:

> If I'm burning my hand on a hot stove, I don't want pain killers to mask the pain.

If someone else's hand is on a metaphorical hot stove, while I agree that it's acceptable to offer a third-party opinion, I also don't think it's acceptable to deny the person painkillers just because we think it's better to just get their hand off the stove. Sometimes you don't have the option of freeing your hand right away, and at least in the meantime (however long that lasts) some painkillers may be a lifesafer.

* I take your example metaphorically because active, serious self-harm is an exception to usual norms. One would likely jump to remove someone's hand from a hot stove without thinking, but even taking away an addict's cigarette or drink would generally be a faux pas. Having an AI that allows you to fall in love doesn't fall in the active self-destruction category, in my opinion.

[snicker7]

With 660M users (in a country with 1.4 billion), "low desirability" has a pretty low threshold.

[tristor]

> With 660M users (in a country with 1.4 billion), "low desirability" has a pretty low threshold.

Research indicates that "low desirability" /is/ a pretty low threshold.[1]. While all of the reasons and possible societal factors are not well understood, the effects are. Women tend to find only the upper percentile of men in objective attractiveness to be attractive, while men are more uniformly distributed across the spectrum of what they find attractive when comparing between genders in heterosexual dating contexts.

The net result is that in male skewed geographies, it's actually possible that the majority of men may be considered undesirable. China has a massively unbalanced gender distribution, which clearly plays an effect here as well.

[1]: https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyo...

[pmoriarty]

The article you link to was not published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or any journal, as far as I know, so I'd take its claims with a grain of salt.

However, even assuming it's accurate, it says:

"As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys' pursuing the all-but-unattainable."

So even though the women rated most men as unattractive, they were actually more open to dating less attractive men than men were open to dating less attractive women.

[eeZah7Ux]

> Research indicates that "low desirability" /is/ a pretty low threshold.

No. First, okcupid is hardly a legitimate and reliable source.

Second, their research provides no justification for your claim around a "low desirability" threshold. It only show a strong skew in how women pick a number between 1 and 5.

[tristor]

> No. First, okcupid is hardly a legitimate and reliable source.

Contrary to this assertion, OKTrends has a long history of being considered a legitimate and reliable source, and has been at the forefront of sociology research in dating and relationships for over a decade. They have serious researchers on staff and they have multiple peer reviewed publications which are simplified for their blog.

> It only show a strong skew in how women pick a number between 1 and 5.

You clearly didn't read the article, as you are misunderstanding their methodology.

[aaron-santos]

China has Xiaoice. We have Call of Duty. They both achieve the same ends. Imagine society where a bunch of alienated workers had a lot of free time on their hands.

[agytvfr]

That seems like a weird dichotomy, Call of Duty is likely more fun in a going on an adventure way, where as chatting with an AI seems more like the old livejournal/90's blogging community(venting to someone about your feelings).