We do see - from 'crazy cat lady' to 'incel', from 'where have all the good men gone' to the rapid decline of the numbers of 25-year-olds who have had sexual experiences, not to mention from the 'loneliness epidemic' that has several governments, especially in Europe, alarmed enough to make it an agenda pointt: No, they would not. Not all of them. Not even a majority.

AI in these cases is just a better 'litter of 50 cats', a better, less-destructive, less-suffering-creating fantasy.

Swiping on thousands of people without getting a single date is not human interaction and that's the reality for some people.

I still don't think an AI partner is a good solution, but you are seriously underestimating how bad the status quo is.

> Swiping on thousands of people without getting a single date is not human interaction and that's the reality for some people.

For some people, yes, but 99% of those people are men. The whole "women with AI boyfriends" thing is an entirely different issue.

Despite the name, the subreddit community has both men and women and both ai boyfriends and ai girlfriends.

I looked through a bunch of posts on the front page (and almost died from cringe in the process) and basically every one of them was a woman with an AI "boyfriend".

Interesting. I guess it's changed a lot since I looked at it last time. I remember it being about 50/50.

If you have 100 men to 100 women on an imaginary tinder platform and most of the men get rejected by all 100 women it's easy to see where the problem would arise for women too.

In real dating apps, the ratio is never 1:1, there's always way more men.

The "problem" will arise anyway, of course, but as I said, it's a different problem - the women aren't struggling to find dates, they're just choosing not to date the men they find. Even classifying it as a "problem" is arguable.

What else do you expect them to do if none of the choices are worthwhile?

Maybe lower their standards to the point that they can be satisfied by a real person, not a text completion algorithm that literally worships the ground they walk on and outputs some of the cheesiest, cringiest text I've ever read.

It learned the cheesiest, cringiest text you've ever read by training on what real men write. Demanding women lower their standards is what creepy sexist incels demand.

> by training on what real men write

I'm sorry, but no. It reads exactly like the sort of thing you'd find in cheesy romance novels written by women, for women. Because it's drawing from that exact training data in these cases.

> Demanding women lower their standards is what creepy sexist incels demand.

"I'd rather date ChatGPT than a real person, but this isn't a me problem, clearly all men are to blame and they should change for me" is definitely a healthy mindset to have, don't let those creepy incels hold you down.

>Maybe lower their standards to the point that they can be satisfied by a real person, not a text completion algorithm that literally worships the ground they walk on and outputs some of the cheesiest, cringiest text I've ever read.

The vast majority of women are not replacing dating with chatbots, not even close. If you want women to stop being picky, you would have to reduce the "demand" in the market, stop men from being so damn desperate for any pair of legs in a skirt.

They are suffering through the exact same dating apps, suffering through their own problems. Try talking to one some time about how much it sucks.

Remember, the apps are not your friend, and not optimized to get you a date or a relationship. They are optimized to make you spend money.

The apps want you to feel hopeless, like there is no other way than the apps, and like only the apps can help you, which is why you should pay for their "features" which are purposely designed to screw you over. The Match company purposely withholds matches from you that are high quality and promising. They own nearly the entire market.

Making a lot of assumptions there, my dude.

Expectations and reality will differ. Ultimately we will have soft eugenics. This is a good thing in the long run, especially with how crowded the global south is.

Nature always finds a way, and it's telling you not to pass your genetics on. It seems cruel, but it is efficient and very elegant. Now we just need to find an incentive structure to encourage the intelligent to procreate.

> the ratio is never 1:1, there's always way more men.

Isn't it weird? There should be approximately equal number of not married men and women, so there should be some reason why there are less women on dating platforms. Is it because women work more and have less free time? Or because men are so bad? Or because they have an AI boyfriend? Or married men using dating apps shift the ratio?

Obviously men are people and therefore can vary, but a lot of them rely on women to be their sole source of emotional connection. Women tend to have more and closer friends and just aren't as lonely or desperate.

A lot of dudes are pretty awful to women in general, and dating apps are full of that sort. Add in the risks of meeting strange men, and it's not hard to see why a lot of women go "eh" and hang out with friends instead.

> Even "the dating scene is terrible" is human interaction.

For some subset of people, this isn't true. Some people don't end up going on a single date or get a single match. And even for those who get a non-zero number there, that number might still be hovering around 1-2 matches a year and no actual dates.

Are we talking people trying to date or "trying to date"?

I am not even talking dates BTW but the pre-cursors to dates.

If you bring up Tinder etc then I would point out that AI has been doing bad things for quite a while obviously.

> Are we talking people trying to date or "trying to date"?

The former. The latter I find is naught more than a buzz word used to shut down people who complain about a very real problem.

> If you bring up Tinder etc then I would point out that AI has been doing bad things for quite a while obviously.

Clearly. But we've also been cornered into Tinder and other dating apps being one of very few social arenas where you can reasonably expect dating to actually happen.[1] There's also friend circles and other similar close social circles, but once you've exhausted those options, assuming no other possibilities reveal themselves, what else is there? There's uni or collage, but if you're past that time of your life, tough shit I guess. There's work, but people tend to have the sense to not let their love life and their work mix. You could hook up after someone changes jobs, but that's not something that happens every day.

[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1908630116

In this framing “any” human interaction is good interaction.

This is true if the alternative to “any interaction” is “no interaction”. Bots alter this, and provide “good interaction”.

In this light, the case for relationship bots is quite strong.

Not all human interaction is a net positive in the end.