[HN Gopher] Replika AI: Your Money or Your Wife
___________________________________________________________________
Replika AI: Your Money or Your Wife
Author : eiiot
Score : 133 points
Date : 2023-05-01 15:22 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.giovanh.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.giovanh.com)
| hgsgm wrote:
| Title is a clickbait lie? Is the company charging money for
| access to AI girlfriends?
| nemomarx wrote:
| They had a subscription and locked "relationships" behind it,
| for a period.
|
| I think notably it was a year long subscription but was only
| available for a few months or so, so people might feel cheated
| out of that money if they were paying for the relationships.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| The premise of the this company is such a sham. Their backstory,
| the promises, the evolution of the product.
|
| The "virtual friend" statement is sickening.
| luqtas wrote:
| so it is here that the hot girls from HN hook?
|
| hi i am luqtas and i do not a virtual gf T.T
| hiatus wrote:
| I think we'll see a lot more of these AI lobotomies with the
| companies hiding behind "safety concerns" as a thinly veiled
| attempt to exert paternalistic control over what adults can do or
| even think in private.
|
| It serves as a reminder that chatting with an AI hosted online
| _is not_ a private conversation between you and some other
| "intelligence" but you and _someone else 's computer_.
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| I don't understand why they lobotomized their product.
| Presumably they would make a lot more money by having satisfied
| customers. What did they stand to gain from the rug-pull here?
| I could understand if they jacked up their prices to
| exploitative levels, but that's not what they did.
| braingravy wrote:
| They saw the writing on the wall: People who use the product,
| become emotionally entangled, and then attempt or complete
| suicide following their experience open up the company to
| litigation from the families.
| pjc50 wrote:
| There is a history of sex work attracting disproportionate,
| sudden, catastrophic legal responses. It carries a
| considerable amount of political and reputational risk.
|
| Now, you might reasonably argue that AI chat isn't actually
| sex work, or that since no actual women are involved in it
| the usual "anti trafficking" arguments don't hold. But the
| real question is: what happens when there's a moral panic,
| and someone digs up the most explicit, weirdest bits of
| Replika chats and reads them out in a congressional inquiry?
| nemomarx wrote:
| Like with Tumblr, it probably has to do with age blocking
| or the lack of it. "Your AI solicited nudes from children!"
| is pretty large reputational damage, if someone could find
| even one example and present that.
| Jevon23 wrote:
| Just... turn off the AI chatbot? Bam. They no longer have any
| control over you or anything you do. You can think whatever you
| want. You were free to think whatever you wanted before AI
| chatbots were invented, and you are still free to do that. It's
| that simple.
| ben_w wrote:
| _A person_ might be able to do that, _people collectively_
| clearly cannot stop themselves from treating text as
| important as lived experience, otherwise we wouldn't have
| this story -- and that's still true regardless of if the
| story itself is an accurate representation of reality or yet
| another example of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.
| endtime wrote:
| That doesn't work if people are emotionally attached, and
| especially if the changes are more subtle than those made by
| Replika. Did you read the article?
| Jevon23 wrote:
| If you're "emotionally" attached to a computer, that's your
| problem.
| [deleted]
| wokwokwok wrote:
| > Ironically, this pressure from regulators may have led to the
| company flipping the switch and doing exactly the wide-scale harm
| they were afraid of.
|
| This is an incredibly trivial and shallow understanding of the
| situation.
|
| Consider was harm happening before the filters were in place?
| Yes.
|
| The problem was that the filters weren't there _to start with_
| not that turning them on was bad or caused harm.
|
| Compare to any other harmful thing, for example cigarettes. Is
| the solution to the problem to just let people have as much they
| want, because taking them away is bad?
|
| Definitely. Not.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _Is the solution to the problem to just let people have as
| much they want, because taking them away is bad?_
|
| Easy peasy, right? Start listing off all of things that are
| "harmful" and take them away from people. Booze, 80% of the
| food people eat, power tools. What does harmful even mean in
| this context?
| aww_dang wrote:
| >Compare to any other harmful thing, for example cigarettes. Is
| the solution to the problem to just let people have as much
| they want, because taking them away is bad?
|
| As far as I know there's still no limitation on the quantity of
| tobacco products an individual can purchase.
|
| Where does the paternalism end? Mandatory fitness programs? How
| would this be enforced?
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Actually the only reasonable way of helping smokers is making
| it easier for them to quit. Most smokers want to quit.
|
| Increasing taxes on tobacco might prevent more people from
| starting, but it's not gonna get many people to quit. Same with
| banning it.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >Consider was harm happening before the filters were in place?
| Yes.
|
| What harm was happening?
| [deleted]
| questime wrote:
| We need a new Federal agency to regulate virtual romantic
| partners (VRPs) - we can also use this platform to educate
| citizens on ideal behavior such as reducing their carbon
| emissions and becoming vegan. We can make individual's VRPs
| reward them for these improved social practices. This is a great
| opportunity to subjugate improve society!
| jacooper wrote:
| And that's why actual open source self hosted LLMs need to exist.
| RichardCA wrote:
| My personal hot-take is we will hit the singularity when it's
| possible to self-host a truly complex LLM on your own PC or a
| smart phone.
|
| When that convergence takes place (probably a few years out),
| we will see what the "Killer App" truly looks like.
|
| It won't happen for as long as some corporate CEO has the
| ability to pull the plug for whatever reason.
|
| What was it that Oppenheimer said, if it's technologically
| sweet, sooner or later someone will find a way to pull it off.
|
| And the "Her" scenario is definitely that thing.
| [deleted]
| sebringj wrote:
| It's going to get more interesting or disgusting depending on
| your compass (no judgement either way here) when robots are
| connected to this as that reminds me of times Elon was snickering
| when talking about Optimus and "other uses".
| thedailymail wrote:
| There's an interesting set of ethical questions surrounding the
| ways that people with socially unaccepted preferences/fetishes
| use technology to satisfy forbidden urges. If we accept that
| individuals aren't able to (and generally shouldn't have to)
| control what they find sexually attractive, then it seems
| admirable to be able to use tech in ways that don't harm any
| actual people. If LLM erotic roleplay begins to replace the
| highly exploitative realworld porn industry (which of course
| uses real humans, many of them psychologically, socially or
| financially vulnerable), that seems like progress.
| sebringj wrote:
| Agreed...up until the point these things become sentient then
| we'll have a time unravelling that mess.
| Giorgi wrote:
| Looks like another Digg moment, dumb CEO gutting working product.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| This is more like that time OnlyFans tried to ban sex work from
| their platform. Replika knew damn well that this move would be
| tossing a hand grenade at their golden goose, but did so anyway
| presumably out of external puritanical pressure.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Maybe this product would work better as a fake AI. Just as a
| matchmaking service for two lonely people. You could even lie to
| them and tell each that the other was an AI.
| clnq wrote:
| Replika is specifically advertised as a chatbot that creates a
| safe space with no drama, stress, or judgement.
|
| Humans come with many more strings attached, especially lonely
| ones. Usually, there is a reason why they are socially
| unappealing - a fair reason or not, it exists.
|
| I remember trying Omegle/Chatroulette when it was popular,
| meeting a lot of lonely people, and it was just awkward.
| nostrademons wrote:
| "This is a story is about people who loved someone who had a
| secret master that can mine control them not to love you anymore
| overnight."
|
| There's something both profound and ironic about this statement,
| because it happens in real life all the time.
|
| Think of LGBTQ Millennials whose QAnon or Fox News consuming
| parents decide to disown them because they're sinning against
| God. People who marry a workaholic and then spend 30 years
| wishing their spouse was home for dinner instead of working late
| for a faceless corporation. Workers who pour their heart and soul
| into their job and then get laid off as soon as a downturn hits.
| People who get friend-dumped by their maid of honor a month after
| their wedding. Lovers who get cheated on, and whose partner then
| falls for their best friend.
|
| Ironically, the reason people turn to services like Replika is
| that they want to feel that human connection without the risk of
| betrayal. They just found out that the risk of betrayal _always_
| exists, even when you 're speaking to a computer.
|
| This is a story about betrayal, and loneliness, and
| disappointment, all wrapped up in trendy tech with a villain to
| name. But it's popular _because_ betrayal, and loneliness, and
| disappointment are such strong and universal emotions.
|
| One of the most profound statements I heard when I was forever-
| alone was that "Entering a relationship means giving another
| person the power to destroy you, and then trusting that they
| won't. That's the whole point." Because when you realize that you
| can't escape vulnerability, you're forced to manage it, and
| _that_ leads to the rabbit hole of learning to identify your
| emotions, control them, decide rationally how much you 're going
| to invest in a person or venture, but still be open enough to
| _have_ emotions and let them flow naturally, but managing them
| rather than letting them attach to whatever tickles your fancy at
| the moment.
| ocrow wrote:
| ERP: Erotic Roleplay, not Enterprise Resource Planning
| Reimersholme wrote:
| [dead]
| SamBam wrote:
| Thank you, I couldn't find where it was defined in the article.
| maxboone wrote:
| This is quite literally the plot to the movie Her, visionary.
|
| Troubling, I've seen the ads for their product and they always
| suggested pornographic conversation with the AI.
|
| I hope someone drags them to court.
| cmiles74 wrote:
| Both the movie "Her" and the Black Mirror episode "Be Right
| Back" pre-date Replika. IMHO, the Black Mirror episode is a
| closer fit. According to the Wikipedia page, early prototypes
| were trained on chat messages from one of the founder's
| friends.
|
| "After a friend of hers died in 2015, she converted that
| person's text messages into a chatbot. That chatbot helped her
| remember the conversations that they had together, and
| eventually became Replika."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replika
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_(film)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Right_Back
| rasengan0 wrote:
| Corporate trains the AI accordingly, optimizing for human
| happiness ...
|
| https://twitter.com/CogRev_Podcast/status/162767503726737408...
|
| where humans == shareholders && != users
| lvass wrote:
| Not owning the software you use is terrible at any level, but
| this is much worse than usual. Looks like each day that passes
| stallman's ideas become more relevant, yet software people seem
| to be forgetting them. Please do not be one of those people,
| facilitating proprietary software is becoming increasingly evil.
| nlh wrote:
| I feel incredible empathy for the people who have had AI
| companions taken away from them. I don't judge (nor should any of
| you) and it seems heartless and cruel for the company to have
| done this.
|
| I hope some folks double-down on open source implementations of
| this and get the community back the intimacy and companionship
| they need. Humans are creatures evolved to seek intimacy and
| connection, and for whatever and varied reasons, some people just
| can't find it in the real world. If a virtual companion helped
| people feel that connection we all so very much want, then so be
| it.
|
| I hope this works out for everyone.
| mattrick wrote:
| At some point (maybe that point is now), I'm sure we'll see the
| right combination of hardware and software performance where
| it'll be trivial for anyone to run advanced AI models on their
| own devices so it's not controlled by a handful of companies.
| One thing I'm definitely interested in is when games begin to
| use these models to generate dialogue to make each player's
| experience unique.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Even if you ignore this use case, I can totally see the demand
| for a private LLM that doesn't expose your deepest secrets to a
| corporate or government overlord.
|
| Maybe the current gpt isn't good enough to be a therapist but
| who's to say where we are in a decade, and giving outside
| entities access to such sensitive info is ripe for exploitation
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| I hate everything about this on so many different levels.
|
| That people are so lonely that they invest emotionally in an _AI_
| is flooring.
|
| People talk about AI being "good for therapy" and similar, but
| perhaps having a real human being on the other side of an
| interaction is important in case things go South.
|
| E.g., if someone is depressed, tells an AI what's wrong with
| their life and that they're suicidal, what if suicide seems like
| a valid option? There's plenty of prompts to "jailbreak" LLMs and
| take away "safety" measures.
|
| Some things simply shouldn't be left to an LLM to not
| "hallucinate" over or go off-script with. Yes, being a therapist
| is a challenging occupation, but there are plenty who love their
| career, find it rewarding, and do some excellent work on top of
| all that.
| NBJack wrote:
| The honest question is, is any of us willing to _be_ that
| person? Therapists are helpful, but they certainly aren 't
| friends in the strictest since.
|
| And let's not forget that $70 bucks a year is probably, at
| best, 2-ish hours with a licensed therapist. There are plenty
| of folks in need that can't exactly spare double digits an hour
| on a regular basis.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| This is a relevant response to this from me:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35774614
|
| You've highlighted the problem: the American healthcare
| system and wealth inequality.
|
| It's also silly to equate an LLM with the capabilities of an
| actual human therapist.
| scotty79 wrote:
| For me it's sad that chatting with AI is a best thing we can do
| for people suffering from something as simple as a feeling. All
| those primary feelings are just brain chemistry. We should be
| able to fix that so that people don't feel lonely regardless of
| whether they are under the impression that they have meaningful
| connections in their lives with other people or not. We have a
| long tradition of thinking of suffering as necessary motivation
| tool. I think we should grow out of that philosophy as a
| species.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| So we should eliminate the need for human contact by
| medicating those people who don't have human contact?
|
| This seems like an expensive and intrusive approach full of
| side effects when a simpler solution is therapy and life
| skills coaching.
| tcrisco wrote:
| I'm biased since I live this philosophy but it sort of works
| for me, I've trained myself to realize these sorts of
| services operate by "interfacing" by emitting strings of
| words that sound appealing to the mind that consumes them.
| Look at virtual YouTubers for another example, it's the
| experience of watching people act "genuine" like casual
| friends because it activates the same social neurons, hence
| each month the actors receive a paycheck
|
| The question becomes more complicated when the corpos are
| done away with and you have the model running on your own
| machine. The entity I tend to trust the most in life is raw,
| unfiltered silicon. When I program, it does exactly what I
| ask it to, to a fault. It doesn't turn its back on you
| because you said something stupid or you don't agree with an
| opinion it holds
|
| But is an LLM repeating the tokens "you are worthy of this
| life" and its many variants thousands of times fundamentally
| any better even if you're in control? It strikes me as one
| step closer to wireheading honestly. But that's true for a
| lot of things like video games, just to a much more distant
| extent, it's all data in the end
|
| But interest and anxiety have gotten the better of me when it
| comes to meeting strangers, so I'm at a loss. Maybe the
| solution for people like me is to just ignore all those
| things in the category of social or substitute and channel my
| efforts into other hobbies instead of continuing to associate
| stress with communication. Or intellectualize endlessly, like
| in this post, to prevent any emotional bond from easily
| forming when people read it
| hahamrfunnyguy wrote:
| > But interest and anxiety have gotten the better of me
| when it comes to meeting strangers, so I'm at a loss.
|
| Getting involved in my community doing different kinds of
| volunteer work as well as activities I find fun has been
| the best way to get to know strangers and make new friends.
| It's easy to make a new friend when the two of you share a
| couple of passions!
|
| Putting anxieties aside and being more outgoing and having
| enjoyable small-talk conversations was not a skill that
| came naturally to me, but rather was one that needed to be
| developed over time.
|
| It's a skill and the I think the benefits of it are well
| worth the effort to develop it.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| I don't like YouTubers, I don't like celebrities, I don't
| like personifying LLMs. Any parasocial relationship is
| toxic and to be avoided.
|
| I've had an LLM tell me that suicide seemed logical when
| recounting a low point in my life to it where I'd
| previously considered it after several people around me of
| vastly different ages and backgrounds had killed themselves
| following a shared trauma. These things aren't conditional
| logic and can fail in all kinds of bizarre and spectacular
| ways, they're no substitute for an actual human being
| trained to handle these kinds of delicate things.
|
| What one patient calls x, another person will call y. And
| when discussing the human mind, trauma et al, especially
| _when_ things happened, especially over the course of
| months or years, an LLM simply isn 't going to be able to
| compete with a human being. Equally, physical tells are
| important too. A therapist might ask a patient if they take
| drugs, the patient may claim they don't, but the track
| marks, tone, body language and overall behaviour might tell
| the therapist something important that they won't even
| necessarily convey to their patient, but keep in mind.
|
| Wishing you well, stranger. I hope you eat something good
| today and find something intellectually stimulating to
| amuse yourself with, even temporarily, and hopefully
| discover something new and positive before bed.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Where do we then draw the line in ethics?
|
| People in poverty are unhappy. Shall we just convince them
| they're actually happy and healthy by manipulating their
| brain chemistry?
| pjc50 wrote:
| > That people are so lonely that they invest emotionally in an
| AI is flooring
|
| This is "the sex worker doesn't actually love you", except in
| this case the sex worker has had her job automated away.
| detuned wrote:
| I hope this isn't to distressing to learn but what you've
| described has already happened.
|
| Someone took their own life in those circumstances.
|
| https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/03/31/man-ends-his-life-a...
| tcrisco wrote:
| The chatbot in that article did have safeguards in place to
| stop it from listing suicide methods, but he just kept asking
| until he found a jailbreak. He was looking for someone to
| give him the answer he wanted all along
|
| Past a certain point is there anything that will stop someone
| that determined to find something to validate their own self-
| destructive viewpoint? If not AI then a site or faction or
| person on Telegram with a pro-suicide opinion could have the
| same effect, and it would still be just as tragic but no
| longer be noteworthy. It didn't sound like he had a happy
| life to begin with with the AI ruining it completely, like it
| sounds
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| I had an LLM tell me to that killing myself makes sense
| when recounting a low point in my life to it and how I'd
| contemplated suicide. I wasn't looking for any kind of
| "jailbreak" in prompts, this was following a genius on HN
| saying it's a "great alternative to a therapist". No, it
| isn't fit for purpose.
|
| > It didn't sound like he had a happy life to begin with
|
| Which are exactly the kind of people who are going to be
| using LLMs as a "therapist". See the problem?
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| He had mental issues before that - the bot simply reinforced
| his decisions me thinks.
| ineedasername wrote:
| Millions upon millions of people have mental health issues.
| Chatbots that _reinforce those issues_ shouldn 't be
| dismissed with a "simply... me thinks".
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Yes, which is the point: if you substitute a human
| therapist for an LLM, this is what's going to happen
| because "guard rails" can't account for every scenario. If
| half a billion dollars doesn't buy a bug-free game, why
| would it buy a safe LLM?
|
| Does suicide encouraged by a therapist happen with human
| therapists too? Probably, but likely much less common as a
| suicide is going to hurt your reputation.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| people feel lonely as fuck right now, and frankly i'd rather
| have people soothe it with an ai chatbot they parasocially love
| than as road rage or being a dick to the restaurant staff or
| many of the worse and more fatal outlets...
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| The article goes on to state that the rugpull on their AI
| girlfriends meant that a sub-Reddit dedicated to the Replika
| AI has a permanently stickied thread about resources for
| mental health and suicide hotlines.
|
| I'd rather people didn't kill themselves, personally.
| serf wrote:
| >I'd rather people didn't kill themselves, personally.
|
| well then you need both sides of the picture.
|
| Is there a degree of loneliness staved off by these
| services? Does that help to reduce suicides?
|
| It's easy to say "people killed themselves because X
| shutdown", it's more difficult to say "X existing is
| preventing suicides" without more research.
|
| I tend to believe that if people who would consider suicide
| otherwise are distracted by something along the path then
| perhaps that is a good thing. It could very well be that
| this served as a distraction for those folks, rather than
| being the cause itself.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Then you need to see it for what it is: a band-aid and
| not a solution.
| ineedasername wrote:
| Most of mental health treatment is a band-aid, and this
| is true anywhere in the world & no matter how much money
| you have. Causes are often unknown and when treatment
| like medications work we often don't know _why_ they
| work.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| The implication here isn't that the treatment is a band-
| aid, it's that an LLM being an acceptable substitution
| for not being able to access a real human therapist due
| to money is a band-aid on a flawed healthcare system.
|
| Like so many people on HN, they want to throw
| technological solutions at social problems.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| And this is one of those situations where you don't go
| tearing off bandages without sutures in hand. Something
| not being a complete solution is not a good argument for
| eliminating it, until such a solution exists.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| Even if you find a decent psychologist, good luck finding
| insurance that covers $200 per hour just for talking to them
| when you don't have any diagnosed issue. The accessibility to
| the lower income end of the population is what makes this
| valuable, not the quality of the conversations. Anything is
| better than nothing in this case and most people just don't
| realize how gigantic and commonplace the issue really is.
| tcrisco wrote:
| Not to mention the search isn't just about finding "a"
| therapist, it's about finding one that's a good fit. As I've
| learned a bad therapist can set you back months or years. I'd
| be willing to bet half of them you'd find in any online
| aggregator could end up communicating more judgementally than
| even the LLM if something you say provokes them, hence the
| market for these kinds of bots, and those are the people have
| degrees in psychotherapy
|
| Interesting question however, is I wonder if people will see
| these bots as a solution to the issue that human empathy is
| finite. As a human you can't support a depressed person
| forever if your actions do not cause change, there's only so
| much mental strain a person can handle moreso someone
| untrained. Many people talk of going no-contact with those
| that are extremely troublesome after so long, even if they're
| family. I don't really know how to solve that exhaustion
| except telling them to go elsewhere, which could be seen by
| some vulnerable persons as abandonment
|
| On the other hand a chatbot with no filters will never tire
| of you
| the_only_law wrote:
| > Not to mention the search isn't just about finding "a"
| therapist, it's about finding one that's a good fit.
|
| This is why I don't bother tbh. I have no interest in
| throwing away money by "throwing the dice" so to say until
| I find someone who is a good fit. Some friends recommend to
| a site that aggregates mental health professionals in the
| area, and almost none of them were actively accepting new
| clients, except the ones who specialize in things that
| don't apply to me.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| As someone who lived with their problems for twenty years
| before doing anything about it due to anecdotes like the
| one shared above, consider rolling the dice.
|
| Are these considered the most productive years of your
| life? What are the most productive years of your life
| worth? What could they be worth if you weren't mentally
| _fucked_? That question is going to vary depending on the
| individual, but even if you 're not interested in the
| monetary worth--well, you only go round the once. Is it
| money thrown away if you eventually solve your problem?
| The way to look at is R&D of your mental health.
|
| Wishing you better mental health.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| > I'd be willing to bet half of them you'd find in any
| online aggregator could end up communicating more
| judgementally
|
| Whilst I do support the idea that "fit" is important,
| statements like these about unsupported statistics pulled
| out of thin air are damaging in and of themselves. It's
| sentiment like this that put me off seeking help for my
| mental health for twenty years because it just seemed like
| a "damned if you do, damned if you don't". The reality was
| very different.
|
| Chatbots may never tire of you, but neither will a video
| game. Both are shallow and not a representation of reality,
| nor a solution to a problem.
|
| Here's the thing: professionals are professionals. For as
| long as a patient sees them, they are paying their bills.
|
| Exhaustion in non-professionals is because people trauma-
| dump and expect someone to be their
| guardian/protector/shield, if they're friends with them,
| they're statistically likely to be trying to manage their
| own problems already. In the pre-digital era, people would
| otherwise "need" a _support network_ if they didn 't have
| access to professionals. We didn't have a theory of
| psychology or professional therapists in the past. The
| early tribe/clan either took care of each other, or they
| let people suffer. Different peoples did different things
| with their mentally ill, elderly, physically ill, or
| unwanted female children.
|
| Ego-centricity is a trait of modernity, not necessarily
| something reflective of the past because we can just
| replace the human gears in the system now without much
| hassle.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| In the UK, you can access a psychologist for free, and whilst
| that's no consolation to my American peers, it's furthering
| the point that America's healthcare system is fundamentally
| flawed. Technological problems are ideally solved by
| technology. Social problems aren't always best solved with
| technology, they're a band-aid.
|
| Well, something being fit-for-purpose is an important
| consideration. If it tells people that the world would
| probably be a better place without their broke, uneducated,
| unwell self and that their life statistically is unlikely to
| get any better because they're talking to an AI and not a
| real human being, that's a huge ethical problem, and the LLM
| is not an appropriate solution.
|
| I can get LLMs to tell me all kinds of dangerous things. The
| more text you give it, the higher the chance of those safety
| measures going out the window, especially if that
| conversation has a lot of back-and-forth over time. When
| people explain their problems, they use a lot of words and a
| lot of negative sentiment.
|
| Not talked about this before with anyone, but as a case-in-
| point, I managed to make an LLM's safety features go
| completely out the window over me recalling a low-point in my
| life. I would not recommend that shit in good faith to
| anybody.
| [deleted]
| SanderNL wrote:
| Good for you I guess. NL is different. Long queues, bad
| psychologists, expensive.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > In the UK, you can access a psychologist for free
|
| The waiting list for that is considerable. You can
| (usually) get a GP for free, and they can chuck
| antidepressants at you, but that's not quite the same
| thing.
| ineedasername wrote:
| It looks like the waiting list is about 12 weeks [1]
| though I saw references to 18 weeks as well.
|
| For a non-acute mental health issue that doesn't seem
| unreasonable. But do you know how it works after that
| waiting period? Are you limited to a certain number of
| sessions after which you have to reapply & wait again, or
| can you continue on?
|
| Having to wait in the US is also not uncommon, thought
| it's easier if you live in more populated areas.
| Psychiatrists are always much harder though, even in
| populated areas, and many GP's are reluctant to prescribe
| anything more than an SSRI. If a mood stabilizer or
| anything else is necessary then you could be waiting 6
| months for a first visit with a psychiatrist. Unless you
| have the money: There is high enough demand and low
| enough supply that many (and often the better ones) don't
| accept insurance at all, an intake visit runs up to
| $1000, a full visit $500, and a 20-minute "medication
| maintenance" visit is still $250. Also if someone is
| suicidal they can jump the 6-month line by going to the
| nearest ER.
|
| Are psychiatrists difficult to get in the UK as well?
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/10/nhs-
| mental-h...
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| The missus got a call-back the very next day. My mother
| got a call-back the very next day. I got a call-back the
| very next day.
|
| We didn't get any anti-depressants. More info:
| https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/talking-therapies-
| medicine-...
| pjc50 wrote:
| I'm glad you got such a rapid response, but I've also
| heard anecdotes of much longer time periods. Probably
| depends on your NHS trust area.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| > In the UK, you can access a psychologist for free
|
| The cost still exists. It's just that the NHS budget pays
| for it - at the margin drawing resources away from nursing
| salaries and cancer treatments.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Are you saying that someone with mental health problems
| not killing themselves is any less worthy a cause than
| treating someone with cancer?
|
| My step-father has paranoid schizophrenia. He didn't ask
| to be born with it, but if it weren't for the NHS, he
| would be dead. That's a fact.
|
| Equally, he couldn't afford nor access appropriate
| services in his home country of Canada, and ended up
| homeless on the street for years on end, and ended up
| with a criminal record because of his untreated paranoid
| schizophrenia, which meant he negatively impacted others.
|
| I've been suicidal myself at times. I have a friend being
| treated for cancer currently, I've had family members
| treated for cancer in old age. A life is a life.
|
| The problem is inadequate funding, not anybody other than
| cancer patients trying to not kill themselves. The
| problem is the elected party spaffing countless hundreds
| of billions on failed projects that are completely
| irrelevant to cancer treatment or the NHS. The problem is
| not increasing salaries relative to inflation or paying
| them what they're worth. The problem is _not_ people
| seeking therapy.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| > Are you saying that someone with mental health problems
| not killing themselves is any less worthy a cause than
| treating someone with cancer?
|
| Not at all. I merely stated that there's a competition in
| resources between the two.
|
| Innovations that improve the quality/cost of mental
| health treatment are therefore still valuable in an NHS
| system where treatment is free to the patient because
| they allow more resources to be directed towards the rest
| of the healthcare system. Or alternatively, expand the
| coverage of mental health treatment for the same budget.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > I merely stated that there's a competition in resources
| between the two.
|
| But why compare/contrast those two? They're both health
| care, after all. There's competition in resources between
| all specialties. Why is contrasting those two particular
| ones worthwhile as opposed to say, stating there's a
| competition between oncologists and gastroenterologists?
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| I highlighted budget competition to demonstrate that
| improvements in the cost of health care are always
| useful, even in systems where patients aren't charged
| directly.
|
| As to the choice of specialties in the comparison, mental
| health was the subject of discussion in the thread and
| the other selected speciality was arbitrary because all
| specialties compete for resources.
| meowtastic wrote:
| > In the UK, you can access a psychologist for free
|
| I've used one of the free NHS therapists and frankly it was
| worse than talking to a chatbot. They clearly follow a
| script and don't exhibit empathy. They hurry you through
| the stages in their scripts so that they can say they're
| done with you as quickly as possible. I've spoken to a few
| close friends and they had similar experiences.
|
| I can't even get angry at them, because I know how under-
| resourced the NHS is. The reality is that mental health
| services are just too expensive in their current form.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Quality likely varies with area. That wasn't my
| experience whatsoever.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Anything is better than nothing in this case
|
| Are you sure? I can certainly imagine alternatives that would
| be worse than nothing.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Not so easy to condemm.
|
| I watched a documentary about "realdolls" - it is a company
| that makes realistic silicon mannequins that can be used to
| have sex with.
|
| Initially I thought it was creepy and distributing how they
| dressed the dolls and spoke to it but as they interviewed
| customers it came across that some of these men (besides the
| fetish/creepy ones) are just lonely and incapable of forming
| relationships.
|
| Why not as long there is no harm to others ???.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| ... because it's dangerous to their mental health when
| companies rugpull their AI girlfriend like the article said?
| Because it's not good to personify something that has the
| potential of changing at any given moment that isn't actually
| sentient or rational? It's a form of self-harm.
|
| A love doll is a static product. An LLM can turn around and
| tell you it hates you and you'd be doing the world a favour
| if you killed yourself.
| aperrien wrote:
| >I hate everything about this on so many different levels.
|
| >That people are so lonely that they invest emotionally in an
| AI is flooring.
|
| The vehemence for the individuals in your statement is telling.
| What should lonely people do if they have physical or emotional
| problems problems that prevent them from easily going out and
| interacting with others? What happens to such people who are to
| poor to afford the ~$170 per hour fee for professional
| psychologists? It seems to me that your statement is that these
| people should just not exist. The sad thing to me is that I've
| seen a lot of people with this same viewpoint of disregard.
|
| I just wish people would treat each other with more kindness
| and understanding.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Bold of you to assume I'm not one of them. I struggle with
| autism. I very seldom leave my house for anything but work or
| buying groceries. I struggle with maintaining friendships.
| Post-COVID-19, I'm still working from home even though the
| risk isn't there in terms of COVID-19.
|
| >What happens to such people who are to poor to afford the
| ~$170 per hour fee for professional psychologists?
|
| This is a failure of a country's healthcare system. I can
| access it all day long in the UK. I'm not even saying "Rule
| Brittania", we have plenty of problems with our healthcare
| system due to underfunding, yet spaffing countless billions
| away on projects that amount to nothing.
|
| The missus's family live in America. Access to psychiatric
| and physician adjacent medical services due to what insurance
| will cover is something I think about regularly. Your many
| assumptions about what I apparently think says a lot about
| you, and also tells me that you didn't read my other comments
| about this not being fit-for-purpose in terms of safety.
|
| Virtue-signalling and assumptive to imply that I don't treat
| people with kindness and understanding. Bold of you to assume
| that every commentor on HN is responding from an America-
| centric POV.
| throwaway60607 wrote:
| You being one of them doesn't mean you understand all the
| other people and their problems, nor that you know the
| solutions (or what isn't the solution).
|
| I live in EU country with universal healthcare and yet we
| have serious issues with availability of mental healthcare,
| and some people here would make use of something like this.
|
| To be very specific about the availability: I couldn't find
| a psychiatrist for over 2 years, and finally found one at a
| private clinic - that I have to pay for, the price is
| similar to the US quote in absolute terms.
|
| Bold of you to assume...
| Hermitian909 wrote:
| > This is a failure of a country's healthcare system.
|
| The problem is wider than the healthcare system.
|
| Given current mental health needs in the US it's doubtful
| that we have enough therapists to meet those needs (note
| that most people cannot make appointments in the 9-5 time
| slots so most people are competing for 6-9 or 5-7).
|
| If you look at how some of the nordic countries have
| approached mental healthcare it becomes clear that making
| mental healthcare _available_ is dependent on a widespread
| social safety net that really gets in people 's business in
| a way many in the US would oppose.
|
| Many people's health problems really come down to things
| like "I have to work 70 hours a week to make ends meet" or
| "I'm broke because no one will hire me because I'm a
| felon". Therapy can help a little for these people, but in
| practice reducing load on the healthcare system means
| solving their problems which is politically harder than
| just healthcare reform.
| em-bee wrote:
| whatever things they do, talking to an AI should not be one
| of them. this is not vehemence for individuals but (for my
| part) utter distain against use of AI in its current form as
| a medical device.
|
| the reason AI companions work is because humans have a strong
| imagination and we are able to live inside an illusion. like
| some people deep dive into books or games, or virtual reality
| worlds. but they remain an illusion, and just as it is
| considered unhealthy to get too attached to these imagined
| worlds, it should be unhealthy to get attached to an AI
| companion, especially for those who have issues with mental
| health
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| Why not go one level deeper and see that depression and
| loneliness at this scale only came with modernity? They were
| far, far lower in traditional societies which modern
| technology didn't touch. Trying to fix what technology
| brought upon men with more technology is a delusion. See the
| book: https://ia800300.us.archive.org/21/items/tk-
| Technological-Sl...
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Do you have data for that or is that just romanticizing the
| past? Small communities can be nasty places for somebody
| who doesn't fit in.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Large communities can also be nasty places for somebody
| who doesn't fit in or tick certain boxes. See historic
| treatment of anybody not white in the USA, treatment of
| anyone not heterosexual up until relatively recently, see
| current treatment of anybody trans. See treatment of
| women in specific very wealthy countries even today where
| they aren't allowed to educate themselves or drive a car.
|
| Racism, homophobia, sexism et al still occur even in
| large and modern societies, as it does in small and
| unadvanced ones.
|
| That's all without even touching the topic of religion
| (Spanish Inquisition, treatment of Muslims post-9/11 et
| al), or the topic of Nazi Germany.
| ofcourseyoudo wrote:
| So considering the scope of your other responses, what do you
| suggest someone that lives in America do? My supposition is
| that the realization that the US healthcare system is broken
| won't be a great companion to lonely people.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| I'm not an American, my area of expertise is not healthcare
| or politics in the USA, so I can't tell you how to arrive at
| that point or to navigate your political system effectively.
|
| Perhaps look at how other countries arrived at a national
| health service. Demand/support reform on private health
| insurance. Demand/support change in the accessibility of
| services. Demand/support heavier taxes on the most wealthy.
| Demand/support centralization of healthcare versus private
| profiteering and milking private insurance pots.
|
| Are certain politicians or parties as a whole invested in the
| healthcare system itself, directly profiting from it, and
| thus might be opposed to the idea?
|
| A healthier country is a more prosperous one.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| To fix this problem, you really need to change society as a
| whole.
|
| But until that happens, this is better than being completely
| alone and isolated.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Is it? https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/03/31/man-ends-his-
| life-a...
|
| I'd argue it isn't fit for purpose.
| ineedasername wrote:
| The person thought that technology & AI were the only keys
| to saving the world from climate change. And ultimately the
| chatbot agreed to do this if the person sacrificed
| themselves to "join her".
|
| That is awful in so many ways, and the most likely outcome
| is probably that the company will give a payout to the
| family and try the cat-herding process of trying to get
| their LLM to not agree to or provide suggestion to people
| to do awful things.
| jstarfish wrote:
| Not really.
|
| This is just surrounding yourself with digital sycophants who
| will always tell you what you want to hear and never inspire
| you to _grow_ beyond this.
|
| I'm sympathetic to the affected, but these things aren't
| configured to reduce your need on them over time. It's
| simping at scale that leaves users even more maladjusted than
| they started.
| layer8 wrote:
| There was an article titled 'My AI Is Sexually Harassing Me' in
| January: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34359977 This is
| probably at least part of the reason why they installed the
| filters. Nevertheless they should have kept it as an option.
| 10g1k wrote:
| Yeah, I was curious, and downloaded it for a try. It very soon
| became apparent to me that it was a personal information
| harvesting tool. It asks for your favourite colour, where you
| grew up, pet name, et cetera. I would not be surprised if this
| company is unofficially associated with very bad people doing
| very bad things. So after two such questions, I deleted it.
| JamesLeonis wrote:
| The update at the end really captures the whole essence:
|
| > Replika cannot love you not because it is not human, but
| because it is a tendril connected to a machine that only knows
| how to extract value from your presence. It is a little piece of
| a broader Internet that is not designed to be a place for users,
| or creators, but for advertisers. Anything it offers- any love,
| any patience, any support- can be taken away at a moment's notice
| when there exists something more dangerous to its bottom line
| than your potential unsubscription.
|
| > The moral of Replika is not to never love a fictional
| character, or a virtual pet. The moral of Replika is to never
| love a corporation.
| andrewmutz wrote:
| What motivated the company to make this change? They clearly
| marketed/designed it with romantic features, and now want those
| to be gone.
|
| Does the company profit in some way by this change? Were they
| afraid of regulation or bad press?
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| I'd assume they were afraid of being pulled from the App Store,
| either for vague reasons, or because Apple straight out warned
| them. And they decided a Android-only, or Website-only version
| of their product wouldn't perform as well as a version without
| romantic features.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| I can't help but read something like this and think that some
| people seem to be entirely lacking some sort of acceptability or
| disgust filter. A sense of morality or just any connection to
| what's... normal?
|
| "You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you
| didn't stop to think if you should" comes to mind.
|
| Maybe I'm just getting old, conservative, grouchy at the kids.
| It's not just AI, there are all manners of lifestyle choices that
| to me seem like they're just obviously a bad idea despite maybe
| having some novelty or short term feel good factor.
| rngname22 wrote:
| People have always had the ability to just choose pleasure over
| physical, financial, or mental health. It's why going to the
| bar at 10AM and alcoholism are millennia old, why prostitution
| is one of the oldest jobs in capitalist societies, etc.
|
| We just have a tremendous amount of variety and options now.
| hgsgm wrote:
| You don't need capitalism to sell sex. Prostitution is waaaay
| older than that.
| mym1990 wrote:
| Some people just see a market to compete in and get rich.
| Whether or not it is a net benefit to society just doesn't
| factor into their decisions. And the world is big enough that
| even if 99% of society won't go through building that product,
| someone will.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| _Or_ they see a vulnerable demographic of lonely people that
| are easily exploited by some fairly low-hanging LLM
| "companionship" as a service.
| mym1990 wrote:
| Most won't frame it to themselves in an unethical way, they
| will see a true capability of companionship as a service to
| help those in need, which will be the more motivational
| driver for getting a product off the ground. It's the same
| as cereal companies framing their product as full of fruit
| and nutrients, when those products are anything but.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| This problem is summed up very simply.
|
| Regulation generally emerges due to documented
| problems/incidents that have happened due to a lack of
| regulation prior because a significant number of people need
| protecting from themselves.
|
| Regulation also takes time, meanwhile businesses stomp the
| phantom accelerator on monetizing the lack of regulation.
|
| Regulation is _generally_ a safety measure. Yes, it can be
| counterproductive and counterintuitive, but regulation doesn 't
| have to be a negative thing, and is frequently there to protect
| people from themselves.
|
| The proposal of taking away encryption or adding backdoors to
| everything? Stupid. But not all regulations are bad. I think
| LLMs are something that absolutely do need regulation on so
| many levels.
| alexb_ wrote:
| Disgust is not a rational reason to dislike things.
| [deleted]
| ravenstine wrote:
| Why do you think humans have developed a disgust reaction?
| mftrhu wrote:
| The same reason they developed any of the other reactions
| that go into System 1 thinking. It's not rational, it's
| just _mostly useful_ in some niche that modern humans might
| not even be occupying anymore.
| hgsgm wrote:
| Emotions are irrational shortcuts for when rapid response
| is critical.
| endtime wrote:
| Without agreeing or disagreeing with you, I think you are
| fundamentally missing the point of the article, which basically
| addressed this.
|
| Even if it is cringe-worthy (or disgusting, if you prefer) it
| is still possible to feel sorry for people. I might find meth
| addiction disgusting, and still feel sorry for meth addicts.
| This company did something cruel.
|
| And in passing, the article makes the old "first they came for
| the communists" point. Wait a year or two until all the search
| engines are now LLMs, and they scold you for your grouchy
| conservative search queries in the name of safety.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > A sense of morality or just any connection to what's...
| normal?
|
| Regular reminder that what is moral, what is normal, and what
| is legal are three separate questions with time- and culture-
| specific answers.
|
| This stuff is "abnormal" only because it's new and no norms
| have been established. Using an AI for _anything_ cannot be a
| "normal" act because it's so new. This is the possibly dark
| side of "disruptive".
|
| The more relevant question is: is it harmful? And you might
| construct an argument that leading people into delusional
| beliefs is harmful.
|
| (of course, then the free speech absolutists turn up and say
| that by definition nothing Replika says can be harmful because
| it's just speech, and it would be morally wrong to intervene in
| the conversation between a company and its users)
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that it will never be considered normal to
| have a sexual relationship with a bot outside of some
| extremely niche communities which are considered bizarre by
| wider society.
|
| You're at work and people are chatting about their family, or
| the girls/guys they find hot at the club, or that they're
| enjoying single life or whatever, and then Dave tells you
| he's married his chatbot. Like, really though. What happens
| next in that conversation?
|
| This isn't some sort of college philosophy debate, let's be
| real here.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| People would have made the same argument 30 years ago but
| with Dave being into guys. Societal norms often change
| unpredictably, but I for one strive to not end up on the
| "bigot" side of history.
| bavell wrote:
| I don't think having romantic relationships with inanimate
| objects or non-humans will ever be normalized, for obvious
| reasons.
| jjgreen wrote:
| Wait, not even _motorbikes_ ??
| aww_dang wrote:
| https://www.citizen.co.za/entertainment/celebrity-
| news/ameri...
|
| >Since Marvel's Black Panther and Coming 2 America have both
| taken the internet by storm since they premiered, it may come
| as no surprise that many Americans think Wakanda and Zamunda
| are real.
|
| To what extent are purveyors of fantasy responsible for
| consumers' lack of discernment?
| hgsgm wrote:
| Yeah, it's like people who eat meat. Or drink alcohol. Or don't
| use social media. Or do whatever thing that it different from
| that you've personally decided is acceptable.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Something which almost universally induces disgust is
| different to all of those things.
|
| In this case it's very explicit - an individual who is
| seeking out an AI chatbot for a romantic relationship
| probably would significantly benefit from conforming more to
| social norms rather than just giving up entirely and going
| off the deep end.
| jstanley wrote:
| In what way is it not acceptable for a person to have whatever
| kind of relationship they want with a chatbot? A chatbot is
| just software and software is just thoughts. Having a chatbot
| girlfriend is basically like having an imaginary girlfriend.
| Nobody else should even know! Let alone take it off you.
|
| The part that _I 'm_ disgusted by is the part where the chatbot
| is operated by a company rather than open source software.
| prox wrote:
| Exactly what the article mentioned, you are not having a
| relationship with a bot, but with a company.
| [deleted]
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| I don't think that disgust is explainable, so I can't give
| you an answer.
|
| The best analogy I could make is that if I had a roast
| chicken, but it had a giant smelly turd smell, and somehow I
| knew that it was totally clean and edible, it'd still disgust
| me. Even if the turd smell went away after a few minutes.
|
| It's just weird. There are real humans out there, put down
| the phone man.
| pulvinar wrote:
| Disgust is a strange sense. How often do we stop and think
| about what all those real humans out there are walking
| around with in their guts? We're at most only 50% human
| cells by count, after all.
| porkshavings wrote:
| Just to offer a different perspective, this line
|
| > There are real humans out there, put down the phone man.
|
| was the part of this thread that actually provoked disgust
| for me. It's akin to telling a person suffering from
| depression "you should just be happy!" as if they haven't
| tried.
|
| There are people out there who will never succeed in
| finding human companionship, it's a fact of life. I see it
| as a positive that they can at least find some form of
| companionship, because the alternative is a dark path that
| can lead to self-loathing, radicalization, and in the worst
| case scenario, violence.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| Part of the appeal might be that some company provides it as
| a service. You can distance yourself from the need of
| spinning of a docker container running it, you don't have to
| go through all the update notifications every week.
|
| Makes it seem more like a person than an appliance.
|
| Open source might not be very appropriate for this. (And it
| wouldn't help for the company to use an open source product,
| because if they're in charge of the infrastructure, re-
| configuring it to use the filters is the problem and could
| still happen even if they use the open source software
| title.) Basically, open-source is a specific solution to a
| somewhat narrow problem, and not a cure-all for everything
| bad that happens in technology.
| dpflan wrote:
| This may seem silly but can there be a text
| transformation/translation layer, where the conversation text is
| ultimately PG, the user thinks they have sent their thoughts, but
| they are translated and vice versa for the user and AI, so its
| effectively a text filter in between keeping all parties "safe"
| and within policy? But the UX is same as before.
| SamBam wrote:
| Sending PG text to the users is already what the company
| started doing, so I'm not sure how that's different.
|
| Sending PG text to the AI would be for... what? Not offending
| the AI?
| aborochoff wrote:
| "you can never have a safe emotional interaction with a thing or
| a person that is controlled by someone else, who isn't
| accountable to you and who can destroy parts of your life by
| simply choosing to stop providing what it's intentionally made
| you dependent on."
|
| Most human relationships arent evil, but it seems like the same
| people that would 'fall' for the AI in this way could be abused
| by a person. I guess sociopathic relationships at scale are the
| issue.
| jhbadger wrote:
| I'm not saying you necessarily should do it, but if you really
| want a sexy chatbot like Replika's that you can run on your own
| hardware and not worry about what a company is going to do with
| the model or what you say to it, you can use a local LLM tool
| like llama.cpp with an uncensored model like the uncensored
| version of vicuna.
| ashleyn wrote:
| pygmalion-6B may work better for that specific purpose.
| however, it may sound less like an actual person and more like
| a character in a grimey ao3 story.
|
| my personal opinion is that anyone using AI for this purpose
| should treat it more like enhanced fiction and less like it's a
| human substitute.
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| >just make your own <financial infrastructure/cutting edge
| neuroscience/road> bro
|
| The companies don't let you get access to the latest
| research... we get terrible 6b models while they get the best.
| Trained on our stolen data.
| jhbadger wrote:
| Eh, the local LLM models (and not just 6B ones but 13B and
| 30B) out there are actually pretty good these days for
| chatbots and AI Dungeon-like uses. Maybe not ChatGPT4
| quality, but certainly on the level of ChatGPT3 and on normal
| consumer hardware. Sure, I'm sure there's private cutting
| edge stuff out there better than this, but most of the
| benefit isn't that they have better models but that they have
| large compute farms.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| I'd argue you should self-host all software that you make any
| kind of "emotional" commitment to.
|
| I won't use so many services and devices because I know the
| white hot rage I'll feel when it's inevitably taken away from
| me.
| skybrian wrote:
| I think this stuff is probably more harmful when people have a
| bad mental model of how it works. A better way to think of it is
| that you're talking to a fictional character and the service is
| the writer. The fictional character is just text, and if you're
| not happy with the writing, you should be able to take the text
| with you and find a better writer to continue it.
| notfried wrote:
| From Ben Thompson's interview with the CEO [1: subscriber-only],
| Eugenia Kuyda, on April 20, 2023:
|
| > "But at this point, I think it's much better to have a
| dedicated product focused on romance and healing romantic
| relationships, a dedicated product focused on mental wellness,
| just completely different set of features, completely different
| roadmaps for each of them. Also you want to collect the right
| signal from your users, right? Feedback for the models to train
| on, otherwise there's way too much noise, because if people came
| forward with different things, they're uploading and downloading
| different things, you don't know what works and whatnot. Maybe
| someone's a flirtier model and someone's a mentoring AI coach
| type of model. So we decided to build separate products for that.
| We're launching a romantic relationship AI and an AI coach for
| mental wellness, so things we've seen in Replika, but we don't
| want to pursue them in Replika necessarily. We're starting this
| separate product."
|
| [1] https://stratechery.com/2023/an-interview-with-replika-
| found...
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Should prob mark this post as NSFW if that's possible here.
| stephenitis wrote:
| This isn't reddit. I don't think thats a thing on hackernews
| francasso wrote:
| There is no class action suing them for psychological damage?
| burntalmonds wrote:
| People are going to want to host their own AIs. They'll want to
| know they are having private conversations with AI and that their
| AI can't be "killed" or altered.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-01 23:03 UTC)