This entire block is baffling to me:
Users aren’t entirely blameless, either. There’s something vicious about replacing a real human being with a totally submissive lust machine.
Early studies suggest narcissism is prevalent among users of this technology. Normalising harmful sexual behaviours such as rape, sadism or paedophilia is bad news for society.
All of this made me think people using these bots were found to be narcissistic in the linked study and seems to connect this with the listed harmful sexual behaviors. Instead, the linked study found that attitudes toward digital immortality (specifically through creation of AI bots that can live on after your death) are linked to narcissistic personality traits. This seems entirely unrelated to the topic and it seems manipulative to throw it in there like this.
Good catch! Thanks for checking the source.
Strange New Question: “How much suction should the robot employ?”
Risks: Weiner getting sucked off. Literally.
That’s actually a really interesting part of AI I’d never considered to be a threat, thanks for sharing the link!
If somebody wants to have an “AI” sexbot, whether physical or digital, this isn’t anybody else’s concern. Ideally, these should not be connected to the internet, but updated through USB or done other offline method to protect users. But at the end, if this is what an individual would prefer over an actual relationship, then so be it, you probably don’t want to be in a relationship with this person anyway. The outcry seems to come from this idea that men (let’s face it, there’s no stigma around women and their sexual preferences or toys) who are undesirable to others should just be lonely and mocked for even using the most basic of sex toys/services. Let these folks have their sex toys and leave them alone, it doesn’t bother you.
Purity culture affects everyone in different ways. Sex bots, toys sold in Walmart, YouTubers having sex toy sponsors…all of that adds up to tearing down these old social norms that have roots in religious dogma, and it’s long past time we left that archaic thinking behind.
I wasn’t trying to imply there wasn’t issues women face around sex, just that issues with sex toys and preferences (the sex toys have “unrealistic standards” for women) mentioned in the article are specific to men.
Oh, I know. I was agreeing and my own two cents
Degenerate robosexuals isn’t something to get your panties in a bunch about. The real worry is when people modify the useful chatbots to provide more interesting insights into creative sexuality. There’s a subject braindead journos can’t even contemplate, yet I doubt I’m the only one thinking about it.
You mean like with applications for enhancing fraud, false advertising, demagogery, identity theft against the more general population something like that?
I’d be worried about that type of thing, I’m not sure sexbots are necessarily critical to that, but It can’t hurt.
More people declining to get married and/or procreate is the problem the government should watch out for. And instead of banning sexbots, they should make having a child easier. Make it so low and middle income people in their early twenties can buy a house. Make it so women can take maternity leave without setting their career back years. Make it so father/non-carrier parents get parental leave at all. Make it so a sick kid doesn’t destroy a family’s finances forever. Make it so women have adequate protection pre and post sexual interaction so that the risks of getting it on are not as high.
AI sex bots are far from the most impactful thing driving people away from having kids.
One of my friends wanted kids. She has a full time job in software and does side gigs like bartending. Can’t afford kids, so she didn’t have any. It’s sad.
Meanwhile the ultra wealthy have more money than they can spend.
Nationalize health care. Basic income. Public housing. Enforce existing tax laws. Tax or prohibit bullshit like “I’ll get a loan against my assets but that’s not technically income so I don’t pay anything”. Break up monopolies.
If this is you, then build your own home server. Encrypt all the things. Make a stop gap from the Internet. Realize that your personal data is very valuable to predatory groups and governments. Never trust the cloud.
If this is you, then build your own home server.
While I don’t disagree, there’s also a very considerable cost difference here between running locally and remotely.
If a user sets up an AI chatbot, then has their compute card under average 24/7 load of 1% – which would require averaging, say, a daily session for an hour with the thing averaging 25% of its compute capacity during that session – then the hardware costs for a local setup would be 100x that of a remote setup that spreads load evenly across users.
That is, if someone can find a commercial service that they can trust not to log the contents, the economics definitely permit room for that service to cost less.
That becomes particularly significant if one wants to run a model that requires a substantial amount of on-card memory. I haven’t been following closely, but it looks like the compute card vendors intend to use amount of memory on-card to price discriminate between the “commercial AI” and “consumer gaming” market. That permits charging a relatively large amount for a relatively small amount of additional memory on-card.
So an Nvidia H100 with 80GB onboard runs about (checks) $30k, and a consumer Geforce 4090 with 24GB is about $2k.
An AMD MI300 with 128GB onboard runs about (checks) $20k, and a consumer Radeon XT 7900 XTX with 24GB is about $1k.
That is, at current hardware pricing, the economics make a lot of sense to time-share the hardware across multiple users.
You can’t truly trust any commercial service.
