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
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?
> 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.
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.
I think you're missing my point. I'm only talking about the users. If something could in theory effect the same result in their brains that normal love does, then I personally would be all for it. Maybe we're not there yet, but I'm talking about the principle rather than any specific implementation.
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?
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.
> 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.