I'm not defending the article and agree with you that it's despicable, but the only thing successful VC firms know how to do is to bet on companies that will make them money. It's clear that a future where AI companions exist is coming, and it will be a huge industry, so it's only logical that they would latch on to it and promote it in the only way they know how.

As for AI companions themselves, sure. They will be addicting and harmful, but technology is already that. Yet loneliness is a worldwide epidemic, and I reckon that AI has the potential to also improve the quality of life for many people. This in turn will lead us to even lower birth rates, but that seems inescapable as well. The next 50 years will be interesting, to say the least.

Specifically, I would want to make it illegal to sell access to AI companions, but not criminalize talking to or using AI companions. This targets punishment at the exploiters rather than the exploited.

It’s possible I could be swayed by the “these are more helpful than harmful” argument, but more evidence is required on both sides. I’m sure there will be plenty of evidence coming.

Seriously? How could that possibly work for people who don't want to build their own robots and AI? If there's demand for it, there should be a free market for it. Regulated in some way, of course. Yes, there will be companies that will abuse this and people will get exploited, just as there are companies that do that today, but the alternative sounds like living in a police state.

This argument is similar to the "war" on drugs. We know that an outright ban does more harm than good, but even just decriminalizing consumption doesn't get rid of a black market and associated issues. See the current situation in The Netherlands, for example. The path forward is clearly full legalization, regulated in some way by the state, as exemplified by the US in the last couple of decades. These regulations can be too broad or strict, but as with any market, some balance must be found that benefits society as a whole.

While I am in favor of places trying drug legalization, and certainly think there are drugs that are currently illegal that should not be, I (and most people) are unconvinced that legalization is the correct path for highly addictive drugs like opiates or amphetamines. Oregon has recently reversed their drug decriminalization due to its perceived negative externalities and failure to reduce harm. No, this is not solid evidence that decriminalization/legalization doesn't work, but is some evidence. More data required.

To the point - yes, I generally believe that the law should prevent the sale of some things due to their negative externalities. Most people feel the same.

But both of those have legitimate use cases and are on the legal market. The crucial part is getting the regulation right, which starts by getting rid of corruption in government agencies like the FDA that are supposed to do their job, so that criminals like the Sackler family can't market and sell them to everyone. These are all institutional challenges that governments need to tackle, but they're unrelated to how addictive a substance is. After all, we've been marketed and sold tobacco and alcohol for decades, which have done immeasurable levels of harm to our wellbeing. But it's possible to reach a place where we can all live with the personal decisions of one another, without becoming a nanny state. Whether or not most people agree with this hardly affects my opinion.

Anyway, it's clear that we disagree on some political points, and I don't want to steer this way off the original topic. Cheers!