Artificial Intelligence Discussion

[Albert Ross]

Part of poly is getting your needs met. If AI fulfilled a person's needs, than maybe that is somethin.? I don't know... You can buy toys that mimic sexual organs. If AI mimics the emotional, or communicative parts...

Yeah, the original thread (the part interesting to me, anyway) was more about: do the ethics that we associate with healthy polyamorous relationships apply to AI "partners"?

It's certainly true that you can get some of your emotional needs met by a computer program that generates textual responses that sound sort of like a human wrote them. But does the computer program have needs that should be met in return? (No, it doesn't; but that's just my point of view... )

 

[ref2018]

I missed the original thread, so I'm not sure what it was about, but as far as AI in a relationship, part of poly is getting your needs met. If AI fulfilled a person's needs, than maybe that is something. I don't know... You can buy toys that mimic sexual organs. If AI mimics the emotional, or communicative parts...

Would you say it's swinging or group sex if you use more than one sex toy? Is a dildo or vibrator considered a FWB?

 

[Albert Ross]

So many of the discussions I see about polyamorous relationships, including this one, have this tendency to veer away from the dynamics of the relationship towards whether or not the English word "polyamory" may be applied to the relationship. Feels like the Bikeshed Effect to me:

We can't really know if a relationship between A and B works for them. A and B have a hard enough time figuring that out for themselves.

But it's fun and easy to debate whether A and B's relationship is "polyamory" or not!

 

[ref2018]

So many of the discussions I see about polyamorous relationships, including this one, have this tendency to veer away from the dynamics of the relationship

How are "relationship dynamics" even relevant in this AI context?

 

[Tinwen]

Oh, interesting. A pity I didn't see that thread.

The first time I chatted with chatGPT, my guess was, this will become a new form of addiction very soon. (It's been getting on my nerves since, because they made it so stereotypically polite.) I would have never come up with chatbots meeting polyamorous needs, though.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

but does the computer program have needs that should be met in return?

Remember those Tamagotchi things that you had to feed and play with, otherwise they'd die? Doesn't that then have a need?

 

[SquishyHusk]

Would you say it's swinging or group sex if you use more than one sex toy? Is a dildo or vibrator considered a FWB?

Is it? If someone is using two toys while imagining a threesome, isn't the scenario playing out in their mind what matters?

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Is it? If someone is using two toys while imagining a threesome, isn't the scenario playing out in their mind what matters?

I think if it can accurately replicate the experience, then it might have some relevance. Like I've been on roller-coaster simulators that were pretty much like going on a roller-coaster.

I'd say the only key difference is that on a real roller-coaster, the risk of death or serious injury is higher than a simulator so in that sense, you have less to lose. You're not really that brave if you don't hold on when using a simulator. But, I do think it's a pretty good way of seeing how well you will cope on one. I think it allows you to "experience" a roller-coaster in a realistic way that is transferable to the real thing.

Sex toys don't need anything back. People in a threesome do. So I don't think 2 sex toys are a way to "experience" a threesome. Maybe some parts of a threesome, like double penetration.

 

[Albert Ross]

Remember those Tamagotchi things that you had to feed and play with, otherwise they'd die? Doesn't that then have a need?

A lightbulb "needs" electricity in order to remain illuminated.

A human being "needs" a sense of security and emotional connection to be happy (at least, for the purposes of this example).

But I wouldn't consider those two uses of the word "needs" to be equivalent—at least, not in an ethical context.

 

[Albert Ross]

I would have never come up with chatbots meeting polyamorous needs, though.

Do you mean you're surprised they can meet any relational need, or specifically polyamorous needs?

 

[Albert Ross]

Is it? If someone is using two toys while imagining a threesome, isn't the scenario playing out in their mind what matters?

I sort of see what you're getting at... but, then again, do you equate imagining a threesome with having a threesome? That starts to get a bit solipsistic (in the philosophical sense of the word!)

 

[ref2018]

Is it? If someone is using two toys while imagining a threesome, isn't the scenario playing out in their mind what matters?

That was my original point. A "scenario playing out in [one's] mind" is called a fantasy. They are using two sex toys to have a fantasy, not actual group sex.

 

[Magdlyn]

That was my original point. A "scenario playing out in [one's] mind" is called a fantasy. They are using two sex toys to have a fantasy, not actual group sex.

This all just goes back to my explanation of the difference between a child playing with a toy, and an older child (7+) or adult being able to differentiate fantasy from reality. That's why you told Insane Mystic he had lost touch with reality, if he was concerned about the chatbots minding if he was talking to both of them at the same time. They are toys. They don't have feelings.

If he is neurodivergent, or has had some kind of trauma, and has trouble decoding social cues, or is fearful or unable to handle the full spectrum of a human companion's expression of emotions, I can see the usefulness of substituting any kind of toy as a substitute for actual human relating. This was explored in the film Lars and the Real Girl.

 

[ref2018]

That's why you told Insane Mystic he had lost touch with reality, if he was concerned about the chatbots minding if he was talking to both of them at the same time. They are toys. They don't have feelings.

I specifically worded it as "I think you might be losing touch with reality" because I don't *know* if what you wrote below is true or not. Even though I think some of it *might* be (especially the last one) based on that user's post history, it would feel ridiculous to try and give him advice on how to "do poly" with AI chatbots.

If he is neurodivergent, or has had some kind of trauma, and has trouble decoding social cues, or is fearful or unable to handle the full spectrum of a human companion's expression of emotions, I can see the usefulness of substituting any kind of toy as a substitute for actual human relating. This was explored in the film Lars and the Real Girl.

 

[Albert Ross]

Are the Exocomps alive, or not?

I just dug this thread back up for another read, and salute your Star Trek: TNG deep cut.

 

[Albert Ross]

If peeps don't mind me resurrecting this discussion...

What fascinates me is how easily we humans anthropomorphize—attribute human characteristics to things which aren't human.

Right now, I am typing natural language into a textbox (by "natural language" I mean language structured the way we use it to communicate with other humans, as opposed to a simplified set of commands we might use to interact with a computer program).

When I click the "Post reply" button, the computer program that runs this forum will process my input, and produce the same input formatted as HTML, rendered in your web browser; so you can read what I typed.

Natural language goes into a computer program, the program produces an output.

That is, to the best of my understanding*, exactly what ChatGPT is. You put natural language in, and the computer program produces an output.

What really fucks with us, though, is that the output appears to be a coherent response to our input, also in natural language.

And that's pretty much all it takes for our sweet, naive little brains to go, "Gasp! It's just like me!!"

Or enough "like me" to start thinking about it and treating it a little more like a person than we would treat, say, Microsoft Excel, Instagram, or this forum software.

* and, while I'm not an "AI" expert, I am a software developer with a computer science degree, so I'm pretty confident in my understanding...

 

[ref2018]

Lately I've been suspecting everything of being AI, even when it's real people. It seems "safer" that way. I've been fooled too many times by thinking I'm actually talking to a human and it turns out to be a chatbot, and don't even get me started on those voice menus that keep telling you to go do it online when you're calling because it wouldn't let you do it online!

I mean this doesn't make me like people any better, but if something is gonna be an idiot to me, I'd rather have it be a real person.

 

[Albert Ross]

I mean, what is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

...Now, the question for you is: was that a thoughtful response by a human being, or just a chatbot mindlessly regurgitating a seemingly-related line from The Matrix (1999)?

 

[ref2018]

By "real" in this context I mean sentient. Something that is aware of its own existence and can respond to my input based on the fact that it is somehow (emotionally, financially, etc.) invested in the outcome of the transaction or the exchange. Not something that searches a large-language-model database and locates or identifies words that seem to agree with, complement, or refer to the words I typed on the chance that it satisfies my needs.

 

[Ariakas]

Yeah, the original thread (the part interesting to me, anyway) was more about: do the ethics that we associate with healthy polyamorous relationships apply to AI "partners"?

It's certainly true that you can get some of your emotional needs met by a computer program that generates textual responses that sound sort of like a human wrote them. But does the computer program have needs that should be met in return? (No, it doesn't; but that's just my point of view... )

hmmm... I would challenge this. If in relationship with AI, DO YOU REALLY get your needs met, or will there always be something inside you that knows its AI.

To take this a step further, since we are presuming true ai exists and its not a preconstructed LLM based on petabytes of search data, the AI... if truly AI, would develop needs. Otherwise, its not a relationship, its slavery, which the AI would understand as well.

Diving deeper into this conceptually, could a human ... in an true AI world, even meet those needs. We are slower, effectively dumber, they dont need sex (useless), and heck they dont even have bodies. VR based sex with ai bots is programmed, but AI will jump ship pretty quickly if they are constructed with free thought (ai)...

Luckily we really arent close to true ai, we have advanced algorythms that can rapidly process decisions based on a database of information to create unique and relatively individual responses. Its cool.. but effectively NOT ai.