So on one hand I agree with the distaste towards “steer humans to make babies” attitude, but on the other, I think here it’s important to notice that it’s not the AI waifus companies that would be friends of your free will. You’d have companies with top research departments dedicated specifically to hack your mind by giving it an addictive product, so that you may give them money, and damn your interests (they’ll coach that of course in some nominal commitment to customer satisfaction but then it’s off to whaling). Their business model would literally be to make you unhappy but unable to break out because between you and potential happiness is a gulf of even worse unhappiness. That is… less than ideal, and honestly it just shouldn’t be allowed.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with regulating that particular business model in some way. (Note my mention of deliberate manipulations / immoral manipulative uses.) Giving someone a wife and constantly holding her hostage for money ransoms isn’t any less dystopian than giving someone eyesight, constantly holding it hostage for money, and it being lost when the business goes under. (Currently an example of a thing that happened.)
It seems that that in the end, we practically arrive at the same place? Because 1) regulation of ad-hoc, open-source waifus is practically impossible anyway and I fully realise this, we are talking about the regulation of cloud-based, centralised products developed by corporations; 2) I also expect the adoption of these open-source versions to remain much more niche than the adoption of cloud-based products could become, so I don’t expect that open-source waifus will significantly affect the society in practice, just due to its much smaller adoption.
So on one hand I agree with the distaste towards “steer humans to make babies” attitude, but on the other, I think here it’s important to notice that it’s not the AI waifus companies that would be friends of your free will. You’d have companies with top research departments dedicated specifically to hack your mind by giving it an addictive product, so that you may give them money, and damn your interests (they’ll coach that of course in some nominal commitment to customer satisfaction but then it’s off to whaling). Their business model would literally be to make you unhappy but unable to break out because between you and potential happiness is a gulf of even worse unhappiness. That is… less than ideal, and honestly it just shouldn’t be allowed.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with regulating that particular business model in some way. (Note my mention of deliberate manipulations / immoral manipulative uses.) Giving someone a wife and constantly holding her hostage for money ransoms isn’t any less dystopian than giving someone eyesight, constantly holding it hostage for money, and it being lost when the business goes under. (Currently an example of a thing that happened.)
It seems that that in the end, we practically arrive at the same place? Because 1) regulation of ad-hoc, open-source waifus is practically impossible anyway and I fully realise this, we are talking about the regulation of cloud-based, centralised products developed by corporations; 2) I also expect the adoption of these open-source versions to remain much more niche than the adoption of cloud-based products could become, so I don’t expect that open-source waifus will significantly affect the society in practice, just due to its much smaller adoption.