[hackrmn]

Fewer people aren't staring into their phones or talking to them -- makes your social antennas pick up automatically on not wanting to disturb them (lest you draw their ire for not having the social antennas long enough to pick up on the fact they're "busy and don't want to engage with you" like a gymrat with AirPods to signal they're there to pump in peace and quiet listening to their favourite playlist, not talk to strangers). Happened to me already many times just with people scrolling their phone instead of talking and not wanting to talk in particular either, not to me at least. And no -- I am not talking about bothering strangers in the gym etc, I am talking about sitting at the lunch table where half of the people look into their phones -- they aren't actually interested in talking, it turns out.

Our devices have now increased the distance _between_ us -- it's not about _you_ being able to "do X" -- talking to others is not _you_ doing it, it's you _and the other person_ doing it _together_. You can't be doing anything together consentually when the other person is in the habit of talking with their AI, or doomscrolling for that matter.

[batperson]

Social people will be fine, I think this tech is far more important for lonely people who for any reason don't get to socialize much (if at all), this is especially common in older people. These people might not have any other alternatives.

[hackrmn]

I think a fundamental and flawed assumption in your general line of argument boils down to that line:

> Social people will be fine

Thing is, "social" is not only a scale, it's not even a line for scale. It's this multidimensional space of different social preferences and different preferences as to _how_ to socialise, not to mention with whom and for what reason. In short, it's much more complicated than as to permit a "binary" division into the "social" and "other" people, but even if you did, I would wager the division puts it at 50% for either group, meaning you're basically describing a cataclysmic event where 50% of the population suddenly has no access to a fundamental trait of humanity that in known and unknown ways has assured our feeling of happiness and warded off a plethora of conditions of misery and worse that psychology has no names for (and won't ever have names for because that's like classifying different gradations of drinkable water, I imagine).

But yeah, humanity has always had to evolve, it's just that these changes come too fast for our adaptability to adapt to, I believe.

[anon-3988]

> I think this tech is far more important for lonely people who for any reason don't get to socialize much (if at all), this is especially common in older people.

Uhm, those lonely people need to get out and start talking. How is this going to help society? This is going to make it worse.

Oh that kid is kinda quite and sad? Throw him an iPad. Oh that adult is kinda bored and wandering aimlessly? Throw him into a casino. Oh that adult is kinda lonely and feels like they don't have anyone they can talk to about their life? Give them LLM companionship.

Yep, it is over for humanity. People simply don't understand externalities.

[batperson]

What about people with disabilities, physical or mental, who can't get out, old people with no family or family who doesn't care? In theory it would be great if everyone got some attention and socialized, in reality a lot of people in society are forgotten, no one wants to talk to them.

For some of these people even talking to a robot would likely be a huge improvement in quality of life, and that's just talking. If said robots could also help them out in real life, sort of like a personal assistant, that would be even better.

[jonstaab]

These people are an opportunity for the rest of us to be better people, to show compassion and mercy. They are not worthless to the rest of society. Giving them LLM companions says that they are — that their only self-worth is their feelings.

[nativeit]

Who’s paying for this? Nice sentiment, but last I checked prices weren’t coming down, and we’re talking about a cohort that doesn’t generally have a ton of extra cash.

[anon-3988]

> What about people with disabilities, physical or mental, who can't get out, old people with no family or family who doesn't care? In theory it would be great if everyone got some attention and socialized, in reality a lot of people in society are forgotten, no one wants to talk to them.

I mentioned in another comment that I totally get it for these people. You are using the extreme cases to justify opioid for the masses. The moment you "solved" human loneliness and interacting by giving them drugged up with chatbots, its over. I am telling you, it is over.

AI psychosis is bad enough as it is with really poor imitation. The moment it can imitate and fool the average person, I just don't see why most people need real friends anymore. We will NEVER be able to get it out of kids hand, the cats out of the bag. You think kids growing up with social media and ipad is bad? Lets see what happens if they live in actual fantasy land with their robotic friends.

I don't even know if I want to live in that world anymore.

Also, your solution to lonely people with disabilities or old age is to create robotic "Friends" for them? This is just sickening. You might as well just drug them. The _actual_ solution is to create a compassionate society where this doesn't happen. The solution to overworked society isn't more opium to relieve the pain.

[jamilton]

>Uhm, those lonely people need to get out and start talking.

Great, what is being done to help that happen?

[anon-3988]

Unironically just "man up". I get that there are some people that have actual sickness that prevents them from socializing but your little anxiety does not count. Believe me, I know I have the same problem. I quite literally had no friends for almost 7 years or after highschool. Society can't afford to babysit a 30 years old man that have anxiety and doesn't want to put any effort. My parent had to call me to check if I am alive, and even then, I don't feel like talking to them after months of no talking. I had zero interest to form any kind of relationship. That feeling that you have when you are feeling like "I would rather just order Uber", yea, you need to OVERCOME that. That is the effort. Ruminating, thinking and fantasizing about what "could have been" does not count.

Even if all I am saying is bullshit, "what is being done to help"? What about what is being done to make it way, way, way, way, way worse. If I had LLM companionship when I was alone, yea, I would have never gotten out of my shell. I would be stuck in there forever. Hell, why should I even talk to you? I should just argue with a robot instead.

[breezybottom]

AI girlfriends, apparently.

[andai]

There are still lots of social people. I found a lot of people actually do want to talk but are just shy.

I spent a few weeks at a hostel last year. It was always kind of depressing and tense in the shared kitchen, just this heavy silence.

I don't feel comfortable around strangers, so I solved that problem by just saying hi to everyone.

Most people didn't respond much, although most of them smiled and the tension was eased. But a few of them struck up conversation and we ended up making friends.

I ended up making like, ten new friends in two weeks. And then a bunch of them ended up becoming friends with each other as well.

[domga]

This is an individual solution to a systemic problem. On a personal level, it is possible to solve such problems, but generally no, the ship has sailed quite some time ago (I personally think cars are to blame).

Even if you do it, you are still swimming against the current.

[logicchains]

>This is an individual solution to a systemic problem. On a personal level, it is possible to solve such problems

I.e. it's only a problem if you're not willing to go and strike up conversations with people. Which is not AI or mobile phones' fault. Expecting society to come up with "systemic situations" to your personal problems is a fast path to a lifetime of disappointment.

[Kbelicius]

> it's only a problem if you're not willing to go and strike up conversations with people.

It is not a problem if there are other people willing to also go and strike up conversations with people. That is why GP wrote that it is a systemic problem that can be solved on a personal level.

> Expecting society to come up with "systemic situations" to your personal problems is a fast path to a lifetime of disappointment.

It is not a personal problem. It is a systemic problem. Are you conflating on purpose or do you not understand the difference?

And it is a systemic problem, all you need to do is look at the data.