AI would be a good matchmaker between people who were honest, but I think that doesn’t address the main problem with online dating. That problem (at least for heterosexuals) is that there are a lot more men than women participating. I think women don’t like online dating because they get harassed by creeps and they’re worried that even someone who seems nice will turn out to be a creep in real life. Creeps will be willing to lie to a matchmaking AI because they don’t actually care about compatibility and just want the “one weird trick” that gets women to have sex with them.

I think the big challenge now is to create a method of online dating that isn’t a miserable experience for most of its users, but if I had a creative solution for that, I’d be rich.

Other than that, AI friends. That’s the future.

That and the sign is probably not real too.

Isn’t this a very reasonable rule? I really would prefer that you did not wash your balls in the Baja Blast.

I think that then we actually agree.

I haven’t noticed this behavior coming from scientists particularly frequently - the ones I’ve talked to generally accept that consciousness is somehow the product of the human brain, the human brain is performing computation and obeys physical law, and therefore every aspect of the human brain, including the currently unknown mechanism that creates consciousness, can in principle be modeled arbitrarily accurately using a computer. They see this as fairly straightforward, but they have no desire to convince the public of it.

This does lead to some counterintuitive results. If you have a digital AI, does a stored copy of it have subjective experience despite the fact that its state is not changing over time? If not, does a series of stored copies representing, losslessly, a series of consecutive states of that AI? If not, does a computer currently in one of those states and awaiting an instruction to either compute the next state or load it from the series of stored copies? If not (or if the answer depends on whether it computes the state or loads it) then is the presence or absence of subjective experience determined by factors outside the simulation, e.g. something supernatural from the perspective of the AI? I don’t think such speculation is useful except as entertainment - we simply don’t know enough yet to even ask the right questions, let alone answer them.

This isn’t the Cthulhu universe. There isn’t some horrible truth ChatGPT can reveal to you which will literally drive you insane. Some people use ChatGPT a lot, some people have psychotic episodes, and there’s going to be enough overlap to write sensationalist stories even if there’s no causative relationship.

I suppose ChatGPT might be harmful to someone who is already delusional by (after pressure) expressing agreement, but I’m not sure about that because as far as I know, you can’t talk a person into or out of psychosis.

Yes, the first step to determining that AI has no capability for cognition is apparently to admit that neither you nor anyone else has any real understanding of what cognition* is or how it can possibly arise from purely mechanistic computation (either with carbon or with silicon).

Given the paramount importance of the human senses and emotion for consciousness to “happen”

Given? Given by what? Fiction in which robots can’t comprehend the human concept called “love”?

*Or “sentience” or whatever other term is used to describe the same concept.

That advertisement had no effect on me whatsoever.

I don’t mean to say that no-one would choose to work less, or that doing so is a bad idea. Heck, I’m unemployed and not actively looking for work right now myself.

I think that in some domains (for example, software development) one person working 40 hours is significantly more productive than two people working 20 hours each. Coordination adds a lot of overhead. There’s also the difficulty of finding a second qualified employee.

But that’s all moot anyway. Someone working 4 days is always going to earn less than someone working 5, and I’m pretty sure most Americans would choose to work more and get more money even if they could afford to work only 4. (Especially since positional goods won’t become easier to afford.)

Here’s an incident that is only tangentially related to what we’re talking about, but it’s one that I found memorable. My grandmother was reading a tabloid newspaper (which she tends to believe) and it apparently had an article about UFOs. She turned to me and told me that, according to the newspaper, space aliens were real and visiting Earth. Then she went about her ordinary business - the thing about the aliens was simply an interesting bit of trivia for her.

I think her reaction was not in fact particularly unusual, but I found it baffling. The arrival of space aliens would be perhaps the most important thing that has ever happened to humanity. The entire future of the species would hang in the balance, and everything would hinge on what the aliens want. I know my grandmother very well but I still don’t really understand how she thinks about things like this. The best I can come up with is that she believes in many fantastical things and therefore just one more fantastical thing changes little for her.

This isn’t a direct response to what you’re describing but I think it’s relevant as an illustration of one way how the fantastical can be less important than the mundane for people.

I think people’s behavior is determined much more by social conventions and the expectations of their community (in addition to pragmatic self-interest) than it is by logical reasoning. I’ll risk being the preachy vegetarian by discussing people’s attitudes towards eating meat. Most people sincerely believe that cruelty to animals is wrong, and also that factory farming (if not all killing) is cruel. Yet they eat meat. I even know some people who started eating meat again after being ethical vegetarians. Did they change their minds about whether or not harming animals is bad? No. If pressed, they feel guilty but they don’t like to talk about it. The reason they’re eating meat is because it’s convenient and almost everyone expects them to, not because they reasoned from first principles. Likewise with religion - if no one else is giving everything away to the poor and everyone will think you’re crazy if you do rather than praising you, you’re not going to give everything away to the poor even if it would make sense to do so given what you believe.

Edit: Kidney donation is another example. I met a woman once who donated a kidney to a friend of her mother’s. This person wasn’t someone particularly dear to her, but she found out that he needed a kidney to live and she gave him hers. I think that what she did is commendable, but I still have both my kidneys. This is despite the fact that I sincerely believe that if, for example, I saw a drowning child then I would risk my life to save him. People would think I was a hero if I saved the child, or that I was a coward if I didn’t try. Meanwhile almost everyone I know would think I went crazy if I donated a kidney to a stranger. My relatives would be extremely worried, and they would try to talk me out of it. I’m not going to do something difficult, painful, and (to an extent) dangerous when everyone I know would disapprove, even if in principle I think risking my life to save another’s is a good thing to do.

I’m upset by many things going on in the world but I’m not overwhelmed because there are no relevant decisions for me to make. Look at it this way: what’s the difference between reading a book that says Genghis Khan killed a hundred more people than you thought he did centuries ago and reading a newspaper that says a hundred people died in some catastrophe yesterday? In both cases, you’ve learned that total strangers died in the past, there was nothing you could have done, and there will be no direct effect on your own life. It’s natural to be more upset by the more recent deaths (and I admit that I would be) but I think it isn’t logical.

The exception to that is AI. I think I do need to change my own life in order to increase my chance of thriving in an AI-dominated future, at least because if some jobs will still exist then I’ll need to be able to do one of them.

(I suppose “Do I flee the country?” is another decision I technically need to consider, but the answer is “No unless things get dramatically worse.” Thus there isn’t much to think about on a daily basis.)

I know that there are religious scientists and I think humans often compartmentalize beliefs in such a way that their belief about the supernatural doesn’t affect their assessment of real-world situations. I’ll even go further and say that often it seems like their belief affects their behavior much less than it logically ought to, with some (but not all) people who apparently sincerely believe in an all-seeing God and an afterlife still acting just like atheists in relevant situations. In this context, the fanatics are sometimes technically the more rational ones - I disagree with their premises, but their actions make sense if those premises are considered true.

I’m an atheist. I dated a woman once who believed in spirits. I think she experienced night terrors among other things and interpreted them as supernatural phenomena. It didn’t cause problems then but I was a lot younger and I think now I’m less tolerant of that sort of thing. But who knows - I was crazy about her so maybe if I meet a woman I’m crazy about like that again then I’ll tolerate anything.

More recently I’ve dated people who believe in a vague sort of life after death but never someone who practiced any religion. I think I would immediately rule out practicing religious people if I were going through a list (as when dating online) but if I met someone in person, really liked her, and then found out she was religious then I’m not sure what I would do. It would definitely be off-putting.

The problem for me isn’t the lifestyle differences but rather my impression that religious people are missing the point about the basic nature of existence, when it really should be obvious. It makes me feel like I’m patronizing them, because to be frank I don’t tend to think of them as my intellectual equals. (And I know that makes me sound like a pompous jerk.)

I completely quit reddit in protest after using it for over ten years when it threatened to replace the moderators of a small subreddit I participated in after that subreddit shut down during the API protests. I don’t actually care about the API myself (I never used anything other than old reddit) but I thought that reddit had no moral (as opposed to merely legal) right to take over something the mods had built and it merely hosted.

Lemmy is worse, but at least I’m following my principles.

Nah if I’m going to shill for any Manhattan grocery store, it will be Fairway. It’s also really expensive but it feels like being in the sort of store you’d go to if you were rich, not like being ripped off. Their cheese counter has prices per 1/4 pound for some of the cheeses but then if you get some $15 per 1/4 pound cheese it will taste so good that you’ll think it was worth it. I haven’t been there in years but I still long for that cheese.

I don’t think that’s actually an unusual conversation for people who live in Manhattan to have. The comments about relative prices are accurate in my experience - I live on the same block as a Gristides and I still never shop there because of how expensive it is, even compared to Whole Foods. I get most of my groceries in Brooklyn on the weekends.

I also know a woman with a whole stack of different credit cards, so she always has the one that gives her the most rewards for whatever specific thing she’s buying. I’m sure she has one for grocery shopping.

My mother loved Dr. Mario. She would sometimes encourage me to skip school (“Are you sure you feel alright? You look like you might be sick. Maybe you should stay home just in case.”) and we would play it until my ten-year-old self got bored first. However, she had zero interest in even trying any other games.