[mahathu]

I've seen people on /r/singularity argue how LLMs are a better friend than actual friends or therapists because they are always available, non-judgemental and "listen better".

EDIT: Here, for example: https://i.redd.it/7qxb1ohvhada1.png

[pixl97]

Depending on the individual, they may not be wrong. If you're raised in an environment with an overdensity of narcissists having something that you can bounce questions and seek answers from that isn't going to use that information against you in the future can be a relief. (well, ok, its possible in the sense your chat logs can get stolen)

[anonym29]

This is why you self-host and run locally. Even if they aren't stolen, do you really deeply trust Microsoft, Google, et al. to not misuse private information you've provided them with?

Their entire business models either heavily incorporate or revolve around exploiting your personal information for their benefit.

[comboy]

Some programmers prefer rubber ducky to colleges for similar reasons and it works for them.

Assuming people have time to listen, would they be better coders if they explained their problems to human instead? Maybe. But maybe not for them necessarily. E.g. low self-esteem and assuming every criticism is attack on them, human interactions are something expensive to them etc.

It's not a new pattern though. Especially after reading some biographies of famous scientists.

You can't escape that most brains are wired in a way that we are miserable without human connection, but you also can't escape the fact that some people brains are wired differently than others.

Long story short, I don't agree with them but I wouldn't judge them either.

[fendy3002]

I believe that humans need to balance things out. Getting zero confrontation from interaction will be boring in the long term, or will make you fall into your flaws deeper and faster. This is usually the issue of authoritarian surrounded by yes men.

On the other side, having too much confrontation will destroy your confidence, kill your motivation, blur your plan / vision with uncertainty, etc. It's more likely that those people are facing too much confrontation in their social life that they found AI interaction to be better.

[HankB99]

Is there any reason an LLM could not be programmed to disagree? Perhaps the level of disagreeableness would be a tunable parameter and could be cranked up when in the mood for a fight or down when one one just wants to converse. Some randomness could keep it from getting too predictable.

[fendy3002]

Yes you can, but AFAIK AI doesn't have moral basis and at best the confrontation will be random. Sure you can program the AI to have some moral basis but people will choose to flock with those that have the same alignment with them and keeping the confrontation at minimum, thus the flaw still exists even if it doesn't bore you.

In real life, we need to interact with several people at minimum normally, weekly. Those are having different moral basis and maybe changing daily. It'll be hard to simulate that with AI, that the fact we have the ability to control them means we're in charge of what confrontations are there to stay.

[HankB99]

Good point.

> In real life, we need to interact with several people at minimum normally, weekly.

I think that's one of the problems with social media (aside from AI.) It's too easy to restrict your contacts to only those you agree with.

[dinosaurdynasty]

Bing wasn't programmed to disagree but often did to hilarious effect.

[jerf]

If you think about it as a one-off amusement it's no big deal. This is how most people are evaluating it.

But consider iterating such an interaction over the course of, say, 25 years, and comparing the person who was interacting with humans versus the one who interacted with LLMs, and any halfway sensible model of a human will show you what's dangerous about that. Yeah, the former may well have some more bumps and bruises, but on the net they're way ahead. And that's assuming the human who delegated all interaction to LLMs even made it to 25 years.

This argument only holds for LLMs as they stand now; it is not a generalized argument against AI friends. (That would require a lot more work.)

[treis]

I think a lot of this is based on circular reasoning. The people who interact with other humans will have relationships with those humans. And those relationships are the evidence that they're way ahead.

I do think there is higher maximum with other people. But relationships are hard. They take work and there's a decent chance you invest that work in the wrong people.

I can see a life with primarily AI social interaction being an okay life. Which is not the best it can be but also an improvement for some.

[jerf]

"I think a lot of this is based on circular reasoning."

No. Actually it's based on information theory, and probably a better model of what interacting with an LLM would look like a year or five later than the one you are operating on.

Here's a little hint: It has total amnesia. LLMs by their nature scale only so far, and while they may scale larger than ChatGPT, they aren't going to be scaling for an entire lifetime of interaction. (That's going to take another AI technology.)

Ever interacted with someone with advanced dementia but otherwise functioning faculties for any period of time? (I suppose they could well make good therapists too.)

[falcor84]

Absolutely agreed. For many individuals “hell is other people”.

[jerf]

This is a false dichotomy, and one that is actually dangerous to you if you believe it. Your choices are not "deal with the bad people in your life" or "retreat into solely interacting with LLMs".

If you have the latter option, you also have "leave the bad people behind" as an option because it is made of the things you need in order to "retreat solely into interacting with LLMs" and is in fact simpler.

Cynicism and casting learned helplessness as a virtue are not the solution.

[lotsofpulp]

Lots of people have told me this in real life about their pets, and specifically why pets are better to have around than kids or family.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Pets are intelligent enough to show emotions, allow simple interactions, and occasionally be entertaining and goofy.

They also run around and are very pleasant to stroke, which is not true of LLMs.

We all know what's going to happen. The content on CIVITAI shows where this will go. Combine it with animation and some personalised responses and many people will find it irresistible.

[saiya-jin]

Yes, what's better when failing to be part of society to create your own, where your flaws are ignored, hidden, skipped over. Echo chamber par excellence even without the need to involve politics.

Horrible it would be if instead one has to work one oneself to become a better human being, a better friend, partner, parent and so on by learning how to be more friendly, outgoing, increasing emotional intelligence etc. All this can be learned, but over weekend (or year).

[adql]

If you are not there to value other people and just want to be valued without giving anything back in relation, well...

I'd only argue that it should be called "emotional support robot" and not "friend"

[TheOtherHobbes]

I'm not at all surprised that an AI might be more patient with regulars from /r/singularity than fellow humans would be.

[orange_fritter]

Hehe are we sure even that isn't satire? "More human than human?"

It could be a White Zombie reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0E0ynyIUsg