[ravenstine]

This subject is a near perfect example of "man bites dog" news. Is there a nugget of truth to it? Of course. My experience so far doesn't tell me that this is such an epidemic that it's anywhere approaching an existential threat to anyone other than a minority of individuals. The kids (and adults) having infatuations with LLMs probably were liable to not reproduce at replacement rate in the modern environment anyway. The fact that it involves kids terrifies everyone, making it an even more compelling story. The ability to measure it is so bad that it's almost not worth considering, because so much of it is based on survey data and lots of people are liars and post hoc rationalizers.

What I find interesting about your response here (and perhaps you could elaborate more) is that it does seem plausible that AI boyfriends would be a huge issue with girls. If anything, it might actually be worse for women, if not now then in the long term. Women love reading about things that invoke certain emotions (the market for literature targeting women dwarfs that for men) and playing games like The Sims which lets them vicariously experience social situations between imagined archetypes in a way that gives them ultimate control. LLMs could fit both of those niches beautifully. It's not that there aren't plenty of men and boys that are compelled by reading and talking to someone/something feminine, but many of a man's needs are already pacified by porn, which we don't even need AI to produce if we're being honest.

[xp84]

> The kids (and adults) having infatuations with LLMs probably were liable to not reproduce at replacement rate in the modern environment anyway

I agree with you on this! However, it's deeply concerning[1] if this young population is accelerating this trend of what I'd call psychological degeneration.

If we take the cohort who's under 25 now, consider that within about 15 years of today, almost no women older than this cohort is even capable of reproducing[2]. So if a significant number of today's kids and teens and college-aged kids decide they'd rather opt out of human companionship, birth rates will plunge even more catastrophically than the current projections have them, with even more devastating effects due to the very bad ratio of retirees to workers. So this kind of thing actually does strike me as very concerning.

[1] I know there are many nihilists out there who think humans are a cancer, and that the best thing that could happen (morally? To nature? Opinions vary.) is for human population to be reduced by 90%+, if not exterminated. I am just not one of those people though, so I want to see humanity live and thrive.

[2] sure, it's not unheard of at 40+ but it's risky and often expensive, so we really shouldn't count on a sudden surge of very old first-time-moms to materially change the math here. Also culturally, looking at 25-year-old people on social media none of them say they're waiting for 40 to have kids, they say they don't want them.

[dingaling]

I don't think they're opting out of companionship as much as opting out of the brutal game of Top Trumps that is modern dating, where the decks seemed stacked against them.

If they feel they're never going to succeed in that competition, then why put themselves through that heartache and financial burden?

Maybe WOPR was right, the only way to win is not to play.

[lotsofpulp]

>with even more devastating effects due to the very bad ratio of retirees to workers.

But with great effects on reducing carbon emissions and other waste products in the environment.

[xp84]

I see you're among the group I was referring to which feels that the entire human race dying out or descending into stone-age collapse is a W as long as 'carbon number go down.'

[nancyminusone]

There is absolutely no reason we need to continue increasing the human population when we clearly have trouble using and allocating the limited resources we have now. Doesn't concern me one bit if birthrates are falling. I might start to look into it if population falls below a couple billion, which it was for all but the last 100 years. But population is project to continue rising until 2084 anyway, which means I don't need to think about this problem at all for the remainder of my life.

[xp84]

> clearly have trouble using and allocating the limited resources we have now

> But population is project to continue rising until 2084 anyway, which means I don't need to think about this problem at all for the remainder of my life.

Your first point sounds like you are probably the kind of responsible person who is pretty concerned about climate, emissions, wealth inequality, etc. Which implies that you consider it a duty to not just do whatever is convenient in the now, but to act in a sustainable way that doesn't screw future generations.

Then you drop that second bomb, which implies maybe you don't give a crap if today's teenagers will inhabit a horrific world with twice as many old people as society can afford to support. You'll be gone after all, so you "don't need to think about it." If you are that callous to the plight of generations that come after you, I guess you have more in common than you think with those people who are supposedly doing such a bad job with the "resources we have now."

[nancyminusone]

Sure, it's hard to imagine any solution where someone doesn't get screwed, but I think I'd rather be screwed by underpopulation than over population. I just happen to live in the timeline which I think is much closer to overpopulation. Alas, I consider my opinion to be much less valuable in such a world with so many more voices.

I dare say I think I have plenty in common with those other people, as I do care a little, but maybe not as much as I could or should. I think this is how we got to this point in the first place.

[mikem170]

> maybe you don't give a crap if today's teenagers will inhabit a horrific world with twice as many old people as society can afford to support

I wouldn't say that a lower population needs to result in a horrific world.

I assume standards of living would change. What other choice is there, given the change in the ratio of workers to retirees? Not everyone could afford a big house of their own, a car, and tech toys and other possessions, but we are productive enough as a society to feed, cloth and shelter everyone, including a bunch of retired people. We could still afford the really important benifits of modernity. And we keep getting more productive, finding easier ways to do more, so who knows?

The Ahmish wouldn't describe a simplier way of life as as horrific. Nor people born a hundred years ago. Nor people living like that in many countries today. Change society like that and, who knows, young people might be more open to having kids again.

Why do you think things would end up being horrific?

[mikem170]

> I want to see humanity live and thrive

Me too. It would be nice if we, as a society, did more to prioritize that.

Letting big tech psycholocally pollute everyone for profit is not helping.

[nisegami]

Consider there's a strong selection bias at play in your experiences. The ones most at risk of falling into a trap like this are the ones who are likely least visible to others. Also yes, I think it will be worse for women but I'm not 100% certain.

[smallmancontrov]

Back when the character.ai homepage ranked by popularity, the most popular models were reliably "bad boys" of various description -- Vampire Boyfriend and such. I'm guessing it wasn't the gents who pushed them to the top of the list.

Whether or not the usage is problematic is a separate question. I don't think anything rises to the level of "sharing fake nudes of a real person" and I suspect the effort of having a conversation is a natural limiter, but now I'm the one speculating.

[xp84]

> "fake nudes of a real person"

sigh. I really hope someday people can achieve sufficient emotional strength to realize that it can't take anything away from you that someone can take a photograph of your face and create arbitrary fictional imagery from it.

It's been possible since realistic painting was mastered, and yes now it's far easier. But it still isn't real. People shouldn't let it affect them any more than fictional text. I can write "<insert moviestar> does <insert shocking sex act> on <insert shocking other person>" and it doesn't mean they did the act or that anyone should even care about that stupid sentence. It's make-believe.

[pixl97]

It would be nice if humans worked that way, but we're not emotionless machines.

Now in the case they keep it private, you'll never know and never be bothered by it, but the issue is people tend to share this stuff and build on it. Other people read it and start assuming it's real or based on some kind of truth.

When you add things like Americas fear of nudity you can start creating problems for the victims in these cases.

[xp84]

It'll still exist though no matter what. The best we can do is to educate everyone not to put any stock in random imagery, and to be kind to those who might feel embarrassed by it. Pretending it's a massive violation just hands power to literally any asshole who wants to hurt someone, because it's so easy to do. And the more people pearl-clutch about it, the more power it hands them.

[pixl97]

Ah right, the 'just ignore the bully, they will go away' solution.

[toasterlovin]

I think the real issue is knowing that half the boys in your school are masturbating to a picture of you. It's been a long time since I've been in school, but my sense is that half the boys in your school aren't masturbating to non-nude pictures of you. The fake-ness or real-ness of the nude pictures doesn't really matter.

[tsss]

Lol they definitely are.

[freejazz]

Painfully obtuse

[dieselgate]

You're reading into it too much; it's another news headline I saw today and an excerpt from a comment I read. It's related to the posted article and the parent comment.