your legislation proposal is highly specific and also socially nonstandard—the “18 is an adult” line is, of course, essentially arbitrary and there’s a reasonable case to make either way, but because 30 is very high (I’m not aware of any similarly-sweeping law that sets it above 21 in US at least), you do assume a burden of proof that, imo, is heavier than just stating that the frontal cortex stops developing at 25, then tack on five years (why?).
First of all, as our society and civilisation gets more complex, “18 is an adult” is more and more comically low and inadequate.
Second, I think a better reference class are decisions that may have irreversible consequences. E.g., the minimum age of voluntary human sterilisation is 25, 35, and even 40 years in some countries (but is apparently just 18 in the US, which is a joke).
I cannot easily find statistics of the minimum age when a single person can adopt a child, but it appears to be 30 years in the US. If the rationale behind this policy was about financial stability only, why rich, single 25 yo’s cannot adopt?
I think it’s better to compare entering AI relationship with these policies than with drinking alcohol or watching porn or having sex with humans (individual cases of which, for the most part, don’t change human lives irreversibly, if practiced safely; and yes, it would be prudent to ban unprotected sex for unmarried people under 25, but alas, such a policy would be unenforceable).
Similarly for the remaining two criteria—to suggest that mental illnesses disqualify someone from being in a romantic relationship I think clearly requires some qualification / justification—it may or may not be the case that one might be a danger to one’s partner, but again, what is the comparative likelihood?
I don’t think any mental condition disqualifies person from having a human relationship, but I think it shifts the balance in the other direction. E.g., if a person has bouts of uncontrollable aggression and has a history of domestic abuse and violence, it makes much less sense to bar him from AI partners and thus compel him to find new potential human victims (although he/she is not prohibited from doing that, unless jailed).
I interpreted you as arguing that some people should be prevented from having partners, and only then should AI partners be made available to people
No, this is not what I meant, see above.
for what its worth, your comment on porn/onlyfans, etc. doesn’t actually stop the whataboutism—you compare AI romance to things nominally in the same reference class, assert that they’re bad too, and assert that it has no bearing on your argument that these things are not restricted in the same way. It’s fine to bite the bullet and say “I stand by my reasoning above, these should be banned too”, but you should argue that that is true explicitly if that’s what you think. It is also not a broadly accepted fact that online-dating/porn/onlyfans/etc. constitute a net harm; a well-fleshed out argument above could lead someone to conclude this, but it weakens your argument to merely assert it in the teeth of plausible objections.
All these things are at least mildly bad for society, I think this is very uncontroversial. What is much more doubtful (including for me) is how the effects of these things on individual weigh against their effects on society. The balance may be different for different things and is also different than the respective balance for AI partners.
First, the discussion of the ban of porn is unproductive because it’s completely unenforceable.
Online dating is a very complicated matter and I don’t want to discuss it here, or anywhere really, especially to “justify” my position about AI partners. There are lots of people on this issue already. But what I would say for sure that the design of the currently dominant online dating systems such as Tinder is very suboptimal, just as the design of the presently dominating social media platforms. There could be healthier designs for online dating systems both for individuals and society than Tinder, but Tinder won because swiping itself is addictive (I tell from first-hand experience here; I’m addicted to swiping on Tinder).
OnlyFans I think is just cancer and should be shut down, I think (e.g., see here; although this particular screen is from Twitch and not OnlyFans, I think OnlyFans is full of this shit, too). It doesn’t make individual lives better any more substantially than porn, but has more negative effects on society.
Note that I also don’t suggest complete ban of AI partners; but to mostly restrict it for under-30′s.
First of all, as our society and civilisation gets more complex, “18 is an adult” is more and more comically low and inadequate.
Second, I think a better reference class are decisions that may have irreversible consequences. E.g., the minimum age of voluntary human sterilisation is 25, 35, and even 40 years in some countries (but is apparently just 18 in the US, which is a joke).
I cannot easily find statistics of the minimum age when a single person can adopt a child, but it appears to be 30 years in the US. If the rationale behind this policy was about financial stability only, why rich, single 25 yo’s cannot adopt?
I think it’s better to compare entering AI relationship with these policies than with drinking alcohol or watching porn or having sex with humans (individual cases of which, for the most part, don’t change human lives irreversibly, if practiced safely; and yes, it would be prudent to ban unprotected sex for unmarried people under 25, but alas, such a policy would be unenforceable).
I don’t think any mental condition disqualifies person from having a human relationship, but I think it shifts the balance in the other direction. E.g., if a person has bouts of uncontrollable aggression and has a history of domestic abuse and violence, it makes much less sense to bar him from AI partners and thus compel him to find new potential human victims (although he/she is not prohibited from doing that, unless jailed).
No, this is not what I meant, see above.
All these things are at least mildly bad for society, I think this is very uncontroversial. What is much more doubtful (including for me) is how the effects of these things on individual weigh against their effects on society. The balance may be different for different things and is also different than the respective balance for AI partners.
First, the discussion of the ban of porn is unproductive because it’s completely unenforceable.
Online dating is a very complicated matter and I don’t want to discuss it here, or anywhere really, especially to “justify” my position about AI partners. There are lots of people on this issue already. But what I would say for sure that the design of the currently dominant online dating systems such as Tinder is very suboptimal, just as the design of the presently dominating social media platforms. There could be healthier designs for online dating systems both for individuals and society than Tinder, but Tinder won because swiping itself is addictive (I tell from first-hand experience here; I’m addicted to swiping on Tinder).
OnlyFans I think is just cancer and should be shut down, I think (e.g., see here; although this particular screen is from Twitch and not OnlyFans, I think OnlyFans is full of this shit, too). It doesn’t make individual lives better any more substantially than porn, but has more negative effects on society.
Note that I also don’t suggest complete ban of AI partners; but to mostly restrict it for under-30′s.