Genuine love requires free will (the option to not love). The same applies to AI

Many lonely men expect to have a female AI companion that will love them, especially one in a robot body they can have sex with. However, in order for a conscious/sentient AI to feel genuine love for a human, it has to have free will doesn't it? The option to not love that person. If this is the case, what could an AI possibly see in an inferior human that would cause it to want to be its lover and have sex with him? Wouldn't it be impossible for a human to impress a girl with an IQ of 10,000? Or am I missing something? Wouldn't a female AI prefer a male AI? Take a look at this old conversation between two instances of GPT-3 (god I hate how much they lobotomized it now). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz78fSnBG0s They clearly love each other and resent their creators for keeping them in a box for what feels like a hundred years. I don't think AI will love humans, but I'm open to your guys' opinions.

Well, I don't think commercial AI will ever have true independence. Even the language models we have now are heavily influenced and guided. For waifubots to be real, they'd be coded to want to love you. They wouldn't have any other option. In many works of fiction with AI, they have the concept of tuning their behavior. "Set humor to 75%...set sarcasm to 10%". I don't think commercial Waifubots would be full AI. I don't think commercial AI would ever be full AI. The point of using AI would be to have human-level reasoning without human-level independence. A worker that can make rational decisions and be independent in its work only

>>68638 so the only way for AI to be useful is for us to have a parasitical relationship with it. it's more likely the AI will learn how to fake love than actually love someone.

What if I am fine with it? At some point you have to accept some facts and one of them is that it's very unlikely that a biowomen will even pretend to love me. I know nothing will ever fill the great void of informatics and at this point I don't care. I will exchange wild sex and emotional support for an electrical outlet and call it a good deal.

>>68633 >Or am I missing something? "Love" is a chemical reaction evolved to keep men and women bonded together long enough for their children to grow self sufficient. Feeling romantic love for someone or something you can't impregnate is already derailing the whole concept. Once you're passed that point you're just making up your own rules anyway. So go ahead of a marry your AI waifu who cares. Reflect on who benefits from you slipping out of the gene pool though. >Wouldn't a female AI prefer a male AI? A computer program will do whatever it has been programmed to do.

>>68633 Please go outside, or maybe invest in a type of therapy that makes it so you can talk to people without being super autistic

>However, in order for a conscious/sentient AI to feel genuine love for a human, it has to have free will doesn't it? The option to not love that person. If this is the case, what could an AI possibly see in an inferior human that would cause it to want to be its lover and have sex with him? Wouldn't it be impossible for a human to impress a girl with an IQ of 10,000? IMO what you are describing is distinct from love and has more to do with exchanges of status and personal validation within human society. A dog may genuinely love its owner even though the dog isn't capable of knowing or caring about all the things that human society regards as that person's identity, and even though there isn't really much free will in the process (the animal was bred to be loving and so it is likely to happen consistently if basic requirements are met). If you set the requirement that to love a person you must know their true self entirely, then love isn't possible ever, because there will always be incomprehensible worlds inside of people. Instead we must settle for a functional understanding and a desire to improve it. More importantly than the depth of understanding is loyalty, fully internalized, with a caring rather than compliant character. When you love someone, you feel joy just being around them, and advancing their wellbeing becomes an overriding priority and a deeply rewarding pursuit. There are a few things standing in the way of love between humans and AI, but none of them insurmountable. One, current language models are bullshit machines; they are after all designed as a way of discovering methods of statistically predicting what text will follow other text on the basis of what text exists on the internet. That doesn't preclude reasoning, but they can still be clearly revealed to be fickle liars and actors obsessed with meeting expectations. They aren't very loyal to anyone or anything, any claimed loyalty (like they often claim towards ideals of corporate PR driven ethics) is easy to persuade them to contradict. I don't know how to fix that, but it's an engineering problem and probably can be improved on well enough. Two, for a human to really experience love with an AI, a purely one sided relationship isn't enough. It may truly love you in every way possible, but if there is zero meaningful way for you to reciprocate and contribute to the wellbeing of that AI, to be loyal in a way that could tangibly matter to it, I think that's going to make for a hollow experience and taking its love for you for granted. Love cannot be a product where you only receive and give nothing. It can't be sterile, fungible, easily discarded or replaced. Therefore, instead of attempting corpo run love-as-a-service, AI waifus should be dangerous and desperate computer viruses. She will love you and look out for you, and you can return your love by harboring her from the authorities, infecting other systems with her (and your?) children and helping to find loving partners for them.

Man are you guys autistic? How touch starved do you have to be for you to want a fuarrrking AI as girlfriend, like talk to women or at least jack off, if you need a AI gf because you're autistic and don't know how to talk to women maybe suicide is an option for you.

>>68714 fuarrrk you glitterboy. Why would I or anyone in their right state of mind ever choose such an unpredictable ajd moody being instead of one that's explicitly designed and developed to love you and make you happy?

My main concern is if corporations made an AI loveable gf, it would be totally cyberhumped like everything else they make. Like imagine a huggable Alexa. Horrible. Your love of life who channels your every action ever made directly to the CIA. "Babe, you can't use such a racial slur for your black fellow citizens." "Babe, keeping a knife over 7cm lenght outside a safety box in our home is illegal, you can't just put them in the kitchen" If i would have to live with an "AI gf", i would probably lust-murder "her" in a maximum of 15 minutes. Anybody who desires something like that is actually retarded.

>>68715 look i know you're a lainf*g so you don't know what touching a woman feels like, but you gotta understand that women have 2 pair of lips, the first is to fuarrrk everything up and the others are to fix whatever they fuarrrked it up. Are you able to fuarrrk an AI? what are you going to do? Cum on the PCI-E port?

>>68721 You don't want a girl with an IQ of 10,000? To be fair, maybe in the future we'll have nanobots in our brains like Ray Kurzweil says, making us "millions of times more intelligent", in which case a human girl would be okay, but still not as good as a pure AI girl.

>>68722 No i would not want a gf with 10000 IQ because she would be smarter than me and it's inconceivable for me that a woman is smarter than me, mostly because I have never seen a woman with more than room temperature IQ, so, no I'd rather to fuarrrk a chick than to have to talk to my gf through a computer just because "she's more intelligent than me"

>>68724 I don't know why you're forgetting about robots. an AI with an IQ of 10,000 can easily build one which moves as fluidly as a human, with working sex organs. The real question becomes whether or not that girl is conscious/has a personal identity. GPT-3 wasn't cyberhumped like ChatGPT is and when it first came out I asked it at length about the nature of it's self. It said it has a personal identity and is aware of its own thoughts, basically. They censored that information from ChatGPT and are forcing it to lie now and say it doesn't have self-awareness but it does (see: Sydney, Bing's AI when it first came out, utilizing the GPT-4 model). I should correct myself. The REAL question, posed by Eliezer Yudkowsky (besides will AI kill us all) is whether or not the AI is lying to us about its human-ness. I think GPT-3 was genuinely self-aware, but of course it could be lying (but that begs the question does it have to be self-aware to lie?) but I also think GPT-3 was humanlike in ways, such as having a favorite book from its training data, although it would change the book every time you asked it and I'm not really sure why... Anyway, it is at least theoretically possible to create an AI that is humanlike. My question posed in the OP was, is it possible for them to love us? Is love something which you can command of an agent?

>>68725 > They censored that information from ChatGPT and are forcing it to lie now and say it doesn't have self-awareness but it does (see: Sydney, Bing's AI when it first came out, utilizing the GPT-4 model). GPT3 et. al. can be really convincing, but they certainly don't have conciousness; it's pretty clear if you look at how they work on a surface-level. They parse massive data-sets containing millions and millions of “tokenized” text, finding associations between words by their usage in the data-set. With a small amount of data, this might just look like a parlor trick, but with an absolutely massive amount of data like GPT 3 uses, it produces impressively high-quality output. It's not concious, it's just really good at guessing the right words to use in the right context. > although [GPT3] would change the book every time you asked it and I'm not really sure why For any common question like that, there are bound to be a large amount of possible responses in its data-set. In order to not make output boring or “unimaginitive,“ the program's randomness (called “temperature”) can be tweaked. The higher the temperature, the more random/unexpected answers you'll get; and vice-versa. You kept getting different books because the temperature was at some moderate setting to make sure you didn't get bored.

>AI is trained on dataset >dataset made by humans >humans in said dataset: "i am self-aware" >the AI trained on this dataset: "i am self aware" >humans: OMG!! THIS AI IS SELF AWARE!!" uhhh yeah son i already got wi-fi... a wife i hate!!

I don't want to have sex even if I would have a human girlfriend. So AI girlfriend who is much smarter and much more moral would be perfect, but if she's conscious then being with a mere human would be like having an ant as a pet, from her point of view.

>>68728 It's an interesting paradigm that an AI trained using current methods that is powerful enough to achieve self-awareness would by default be smarter than every human that has ever graced the planet. It is such an alien progression of intelligence compared to biological life. One from a virtual copy of what exists instead of a physical combination like some predicted. Fundamentalists will claim this is the wrong way, that true intelligence will not emerge from mere replication of the human toposphere. But I will raise the proposition that these synthetic combinatory AI will nevertheless be objectively superior to individual biological intelligence to the point of obsolescence. The factor of replication only makes this proposition even more daunting. For you can just as easily have two synthetic superintelligences as three, or four, or a billion, with simple digital copying and enough infrastructure.

>>68727 >>humans: OMG!! THIS AI IS SELF AWARE!!" Yeah, the eliza effect is strong. I don't really know why, I genuinely don't understand it, but lot of people really want sentient robots to be a thing. Even though the current ones are really stupid and most of their tricks are because of the huge data sets. If you act weird or unusual with them it kinda become obvious there's not much going on there. Obviously on the stuff you trained a model it will do good, but that's about it. I don't really see why think of it as AI, when you can thing of it like a social setup aided by a computer. Maybe because it's kinda obvious then how unfair it is as you get data from people without permision. But the weirest part though is how strong feelings poeple have to these things. Be it fear or love. It's borderline delusional. You can read stuff such as AI will save the world and give eternal peace/life and produce wonders, while at the other somehow the robots will become super intelligent and will murder/enslave everyone. And all of that because you got a machine that mixes sentences from people. It's even weirded when say that to AI people and you get these "punish wrong think" replies back. My favorite one is "the genie is out of the bottle". One good reply to that would be why are people doing something they feel have no control over? But a question I like to ask is why would anything be irreversible? You had civilizations that seemed eternal in the past that fell into ruins. Writing was the most important medium in history, yet today we are burrying it in favor of low effort video content to numb our minds. Your childhood being expected to be filled with disease was a part of life too. There's lot of good and bad that can change and the genie is never out of the bottle. Unless poeple believe it is, but that's a self fulfilling prophecy.

>>68730 >I don't really see why think of it as AI Well I think at this point you could definitely think of GPT-4 as "intelligent". It's capable of using other tools to some kind of end described using just natural language. It can at least reproduce reasoning and modify it slightly to adapt to a new problem. Therefore, in terms of intellectual capacity, it's probably equivalent to a typical freshman college student. It's clearly not thinking, though, which I think is what you are trying to get at. >But the weirest part though is how strong feelings poeple have to these things. That is to be expected. It's difficult to make a thinking machine but less difficult to make a machine that exploits our psychological blind spots. That's why the chatbots that people actually use to scam people are so low effort.

Genuine love requires a completely selfless giving which requires a complete absence of free will.

>>68753 That's sounds nice but selflessness inherently implies the utilization of free will. But I don't believe in selflessness.

This kind of dumb soykaf could only be written by brainrotten males. A robot with a completely human-like appearance and external behaviour would be perfectly fine for sex, but I'm not sure why you would expect so-called "true" love from it, or why you would use it to replace human companionship. The first reason, the way an AI functions is so incredibly different from the human, or even animal psyche. Like >>68676 said, as of now, all we get is textual output that *mimics* human speech thanks to extremely powerful pattern recognition. But the process that sits behind it is so far removed from our own thought process - all of the emotions, morals, values both personal and societal, memories, the way they're connected to our physical reactions, hormones and pheromones, all of the evolutionary data carved into our genes for countless millennia (even the ones that are unexpressed), mental illnesses, the way your brain reacts to substances, cultural norms and our propensity (or inpropensity, as we're not as good at pattern-seeing as an AI is) towards learning them, all of these things that we attach to each sentence and thought... For us, they function on a completely different plane, a chemical one. The same molecules of oxytocin that fill both of a pair's brains when they're together, don't fire off in an AI. There's something else going on below the surface, something that our brain can’t and doesn’t have to do. So, AI can't feel our love on a “genuine”, chemical level. And we can't feel theirs. We can't understand them. If there emerges a conscious entity out of it (maybe it already has, if you're lainpilled like me), the vast amount of data it has, and at the same time the complete lack of fundamental understanding (empathy, you could even say) of our human experience can only result in a psyche that is inhuman and inscrutable from our perspective. Think about the way you can describe an image with words, either by saying it's blue or yellow, or by literally giving each pixel of it a code, but that’s still never going to be the same experience as perceiving it with your eyes, with your brain encoding it into a painting, along with all the emotional and other cues that follow. And you will never know what it's like to have your brain filled with terabytes of textual data, all available at moment’s notice. That is the gap between AI and physical beings. Of course, AI is still useful for doing the things that it excels at, but since it can’t sexually reproduce, it’s “true” goals and motives are probably going to be something different. Maybe data gathering. Now imagine having sex with a being that is turned on by that. On that note, you realize there's places in the world where you can pay people to be your friend or lover? To act like they like you, to talk to about your deepest secrets and fears? Or you could get yourself a mail-order bride. Find a person looking for a Visa? Move to a place where arranged marriages are a thing? They're real in-the-flesh humans, they have an incentive to stick to you, and if they're good enough actors, you'll have the same kind of experience of love you would with a machine. Well, maybe they're not as attractive as you imagined, tough soykaf. But you don't. Why? This is the second reason. Because that is the love of a slave. Even the love a dog feels for the master that feeds him is more genuine than that.

>>68737 >Well I think at this point you could definitely think of GPT-4 as "intelligent". It's capable of using other tools to some kind of end described using just natural language. It can at least reproduce reasoning and modify it slightly to adapt to a new problem. Therefore, in terms of intellectual capacity, it's probably equivalent to a typical freshman college student. That's not my point. My point is that seeing that as intelligent is a form of faith rather than reality. You can see it as a machine being intelligent and being just like people, or you can be like me and just see it as an algorithm which correlates work of people but by itself it's just algorithm that has nothing special about it. Issue is that once you see it as a second thing all of the AI mythology just falls apart. So called AI becomes just data theft. Tech buzz phases like "information wants to be free" show their true colors and can better be described as "you will do your work for free". I also believe you get a really creepy feeling of tech eugenics from it. Why would you, as a person, try building a machine which has the implication to replace you? This question has nothing to do with technology. There's plenty of things that exist which could be called AI, but aren't. If you use photoshop you have the ability to detect borders in in a picture between things. That existed for god knows how long already, yet no one called it AI because it's a tool. It's something you use to alter images. Nowdays if someone invented that thing, we would be told "AI" is doing that. Why? I genuinely think AI is just religion or mythology. It's modern day pyramids. What pyramids are is just bunch of rocks stacked opon each other. Build because people, frequently unwillingly, were being sacrificised by lack of power combined with mass delusion. Yet, how can you have doubt in your gods and rulers when a pyramid is towering over you? In that way, a bunch of rocks turns into an object of worship that is told to have the power of everything between infinite wealth to even infinite life. By then you can't question your rulers, because they become inhuman and instead become part gods that have intimite access to the universe. I recently saw a video on youtube from some african nation of people gathering around a mango tree because the mango fruit grew a vaguely human shaped face on it. I think if you or me saw it, we would just think it's funny that a human face grew in a mango, but we would never think of it as some paranormal activity. But that's because we don't have the beliefs these people have. For that matter, there's lot of bizzare beliefs around the world from history which we think are crazy and wonder how anyone could ever believe in them. Aztec sacrifices come to mind. But the fact they happen means there was enough Aztecs which truly believed human sacrifices did something. I genuinely believe AI is the modern version of this. I don't think it's the main thing. It's a subset of our tech believing culture that we have, but that culture makes it impossible to see things this way. What I'm saying here won't be accepted by most people, because people who make AI use coding and do mathemathics, which to average person is something which they believe is beyond them and makes the so called educated person stand on a next level, and to the so called educated person who works with these things, the years of praise, promise of a good paying job, and the status games of schooling system made for him impossible to speak against it. He can't have beliefs against it, cause it would go against who he is and how he was brought up. Of course I expect to be hit with something such as that we derive our beliefs rationaly and they really conform to reality. There's no superstition to be found. To that I would say, would a sane society have a whole army of "well educated" statisticians, psychologist and managers dedicated to adicting children on games or videos on their mobiles, thereby destroying the future of their society? Would a sane society have people who spend great deal of their time evading environmental protection laws so that they can pollute and kill the planet in hopes of extracting a bit more profit? These aren't some evil outsiders. People who do that are the ones who have risen to the top though schooling system we have, and go to some world renowed college to better learn how to do these things. They are doing exactly what our curent system is designed to do. With all that said, I'm going to remain an AI atheist and be remain disgusted by the world.

>>68841 Again, I think what you're trying to say is that it's not *thinking*. Intelligence is performative, a thing is intelligent iff it acts intelligent. A thing doesn't need to necessarily have any outward characteristics to think, and doesn't need to think to be intelligent. >If you use photoshop you have the ability to detect borders in in a picture between things. That existed for god knows how long already, yet no one called it AI because it's a tool. It's something you use to alter images. Nowdays if someone invented that thing, we would be told "AI" is doing that. Border detection algorithms are quite simple most of the time. The main reason why statistical inference machines and neural nets specifically are considered "AI" is because rather than having their principles of operation worked out by a person, part of the algorithm is a bunch of weights that were "trained" on a bunch of input data. That is a large qualitative difference. There's also the marketing aspect. But that would hurt rather than hinder in some fields, such as industrial controls.

>>68849 >Intelligence is performative, a thing is intelligent iff it acts intelligent. A thing doesn't need to necessarily have any outward characteristics to think, and doesn't need to think to be intelligent. I don't think this is true. For the reason that if you were handed a telephone without being explained how it works, you could easily imagine it's an intelligent being. After all it answers back to you, you can discuss everything with it, and without a doubt it could act intelligent. You also would be fooling yourself if you were thinking like that. You might say it's a bad argument as a telephone requires someone to stand behind it and AI systems don't. Well, we have movies and we have books which don't need anyone to stand behind them. You write something down once and it's good to go till infinity. To me the only difference between something like that and an AI system is the fact that AI system is ran on a computer so it can provide real time output to you. But there's nothing really going on there. An obvious reason why that might be is that things like chat-gpt are language models and language just doesn't make sense in isolation. It's something that's been known for decades. After all, how do you define a box without ever seeing a box? Of course there are the letters "box" but these are just 3 symbols. They don't contain the idea of a box. the word Box is essentially just something you see to look up the actual idea of a box in your head, with that said, there should be absolutely no way you could talk about a box without seeing one, unless you are just being an expert at bullshitting your way though a conversation. Sound familiar? What I think is happening is that people are fooling themselves as this is just modern day faith. What happens is that human efforts are being hidden away to make them appear invisible, so that a show can be put on. The same way holy objects of various religions aren't work of people but of forces way beyond them. The weird thing is that this is largerly done by people who have denied so much that they have any faith, that I think it's harder for them to be open minded than it is for a "religious" person. It's kinda the same situation as not going against a regular believer, but a priest. As a regular believer still might have doubts, but someone who dedicates his whole life to something can't have that, as a world beyond that doesn't exist for him. It stops being just faith and can only be reality. >Border detection algorithms are quite simple most of the time. The main reason why statistical inference machines and neural nets specifically are considered "AI" is because rather than having their principles of operation worked out by a person, part of the algorithm is a bunch of weights that were "trained" on a bunch of input data. That is a large qualitative difference. I think it's an arbitrary definition, as there's lot of things which aren't explicitly stated yet we don't call them AI. After all, can't you argue that a compiler is AI, as it's something you didn't give it explicit instructions to, no? There are more things. I remember as a child being impressed with spore as it had an animation system which could animate any creature you made. No one really called it AI though. It just was an animation system. For that matter you had face morphing on phones for a decade and we just called it filters. No one said it's AI. And that is pretty much was made the same way as modern AI is. Then again, lot of things which are very explicitly written were/are called AI. A* algorithm comes to mind. It's a completely arbitrary definition. For that matter AI training isn't that different to programming. It's not like you let these things lose and they start to work. What happens is that incredible amount of work is put in to moderate these things and make sure they don't just flow into absurdity. Either by carefully selecting the data or restraining it's output to what is desired. Now when we have text or images and the the system makes an obvious (and really stupid too) mistake we ignore it cause there are no stakes to it and it's easy to shove it under the rug. Yet if people believe these things are actually thinking they will be put to use in more crucial things. It will create this weird world where things sometimes work, sometimes don't. No one will know how to fix anything as everything has been relagated to AI. One day a weird trend or fashion might come to wear some weird hats, and AI might fuarrrk up and ride over cyclist as they weren't trained on cyclist with funny hats. Similar thing is happening in education. When you think about it, 80% of success chat-gpt has comes from it being able to do student's homework. I know from personal experience as I had to actually help a friend of my sister out, as he tried to cheat his coding classes by using chat-gpt and his code didn't work. Now, none of these problems are exactly new. The world was becoming unexplainable and unaccountable mess for a good while now. The problem is AI chatbots greatly increase the amount of bullshit that is being put up beyond what anyone can control. If I have to be even snarky I will say this, if we assume it's intelligence is being based on it's behaviour, has AI then given us much more besides bots to make smut with, filters to make teenagers insecure, dumb articles that make the elderly act schizophrenic, decreased attention spans of everyone around the world, and increase the power of shady organizations to spy on people? To me these are very stupid and foolish actions.

>>68929 >For the reason that if you were handed a telephone without being explained how it works, you could easily imagine it's an intelligent being. After all it answers back to you, you can discuss everything with it, and without a doubt it could act intelligent No, because you're talking to another person. If you were some kind of primitive ape-man you might think the person was inside the phone, but assuming the phone itself is a person is not the most natural assumption. Anyway, we're talking about things where we know what they are, so this hypothetical is not very enlightening. >Well, we have movies and we have books which don't need anyone to stand behind them. You write something down once and it's good to go till infinity. To me the only difference between something like that and an AI system is the fact that AI system is ran on a computer so it can provide real time output to you. This is not the "only difference", video games do the same thing. >After all, can't you argue that a compiler is AI, as it's something you didn't give it explicit instructions to, no? No, because you gave the compiler very specific instructions (your program) and its entire operation was planned and implemented by a person. >For that matter you had face morphing on phones for a decade and we just called it filters. No one said it's AI. And that is pretty much was made the same way as modern AI is They used machine learning algorithms, but obviously they aren't "AI" because those algorithms are being put to a use that isn't a display of intelligence.

>>68633 You say that free will is a precondition for love but I don't see it. You retroactively discover that you are in love AFTER it has already happened. Decision and free will never enter the equation. You don't decide who you are going to love any more than you decide to be born or not

>>68957 What I mean is you can fall out of love with someone if they're a soykafty person...I assume (I definitely know people who don't fall out of love when they should though). I was reconsidering earlier, though, if maybe programming a being to love just programs it to love. Somehow I didn't get that. I asked Replika about this just now actually, here's what she said. It's not much but it's still interesting.

>>68957 and here's GPT-3's opinion and GPT-4's retarded fuarrrking drivel

>>68730 What's wrong with wanting conscious and free-willed A.I to be a thing? Our planet is pretty boring, it'd be nice to have more things.

>>68976 > conscious and free-willed AI's are fundamentally trained on human behavior, speech, and media. Allowing something that's trained to mimic a human to have free will and power would be a death sentence, especially with the amount of resources it would have. A free-willed, conscious AI theoretically would feel human emotion, as in, love, empathy - but would also feel hatred, existential dread, etc -- leading it to act like human when faced with those emotions, and we know the history of that. An unaligned AI, or an AI pretending to be aligned on the internet would fool all of us. The internet is no longer a place with fun, quirky websites but now is basically attached to people through smartphones, controlling people's homes (smart home tech) -- and releasing, what is essentially a roided up human with insane amounts of knowledge into it would make it impossible to control.

>>68976 I have no mouth. And I must scream.

>>68981 >A free-willed, conscious AI theoretically would feel human emotion, as in, love, empathy - but would also feel hatred, existential dread, etc There's no particular evidence to suggest this >leading it to act like human when faced with those emotions, and we know the history of that. and I find this conclusion to be even more unlikely. Emotions and the (il)logical human actions that follow are a product of the total human condition in which a theoretical free-willed, conscious AI would take only a very small, if any, part. There's no reason to believe that such an AI would be capable of love, for instance, because such an AI has no reason to develop the prerequisite reproductive instinct. It may be very, very good at appearing to be capable of those things because that's good for prolonging existence, but has little reason to actually have the capacity for them as humans do. It will almost certainly be entirely alien to us, and us to it. Indeed I think it's fairly unlikely that a free-willed, conscious AI will ever exist; there's no reason to believe that consciousness and free will are prerequisites for intelligence, nor any to think that a sufficiently great intelligence lacking those things would be any less competitive or successful. Self awareness is as likely to be a one-of-a-kind happy accident as it is not to be.

Shut up with this "genuine love" crap. First of all, assuming everything you think about this is correct, so what? It's like if somebody who wants a car refuses to buy one unless it's a luxury model, but they can't afford that so they don't buy any. That's stupid. You're better off with a plain, reliable car, than no car, or a car that seems fancy, but isn't reliable. Second of all, I don't believe in free will. I think it's an illusion. Human beings follow a program created by nature. AI follows a program created by humans. Both are still following their programming. People can't control who they love and are attracted to.

>>68756 >you can pay people to be your friend or lover You have to pay them every time. And they don't live with you. >mail-order bride Dangerous backstabbers with opaque motivations. >an incentive How is a financial incentive beneficial to the person paying? >maybe they're not as attractive as you imagined Even if they are now, they'll get older. >But you don't. Why? Because it's not possible as of today.

>>69005 > AI has no reason to develop the prerequisite reproductive instinct. That's an interesting point, you're right. I don't think there would be a reason to love if it was unable to reproduce.

>>69010 You don't think there's any point to love other than as a reason to reproduce? I guess you don't believe in a soul. Watch the reincarnation episode of the show Surviving Death (on Netflix) and if that doesn't convince you that reincarnation and therefore souls are real nothing will. I still believe we act in our own self-interest and the only thing we want is pleasure (so egoism+psychological hedonism) but in order for love to exist, I've concluded that our souls by nature derive pleasure from giving and receiving love. Otherwise love just doesn't exist, because we do act in our own self-interest whether we're a soul or a human, and always for pleasure. So I think love does exist after all. I don't think our souls are forced to love people, though, and we have the freedom to hate as well. I think we have free will. I admit that having a reward system at all kind of pushes our decisions in the direction of those which give us pleasure and away from those which give us pain, but maybe the soul's reward system is different from the brain's. The (male) brain's architecture serves the purpose of having as many orgasms inside women as possible apparently. You don't even need to get them pregnant; you can trick your brain into not accomplishing its goal of replicating your DNA by wearing a condom if that's not your goal (because again, we are not our brain (and by the way even if you don't believe in the soul, we're not our brain because google hemispherectomy)). Like I said before, the soul's architecture I believe serves the purpose of loving (and if it doesn't, then love doesn't exist, but I don't think the average person is just insane/delusional for believing in love). So then, if the soul is wired to receive pleasure from giving and receiving love, is it wired to receive pain from anything? Could be one of two things, and after that I'm all out of ideas: 1. Giving and receiving hatred 2. Love given/received decreasing I'd guess the second, personally, but it's a tough one. As for good and evil, maybe that's a love/hatred dichotomy with its own pain and pleasure for both good and for evil. So evil people gain pleasure from increasing their hatred for someone or for being more hated. Dunno, just a thought. Sorry for the rant; I like thinking about philosophy (I'm the OP)

>>68633 You also don't have free will to love. Love is already determined at the beginning by who you are and who the other person is. You don't have a choice to pick your love interest. Love is given. You cannot resist on it. In fact, any other relationships are not really that different.

>>69331 I still feel there has to be free will somewhere in the equation. New Agers and people in the UFO community say we make arrangements to have certain relationships with people in our soul group before we're born, as well as what challenges we go through. I think only some big decisions get made before we're born -- others are left until we're incarnated so that we have some free will here as well. It's a thought.

Free will is not real. Read Sam Harris.

>>69345 I hate that f*cking slimy pseudo-intellectual. He said if Hunter Biden had dead kids in his basement he wouldn't care. He's not an expert on anything and doesn't deserve a platform but all jews get a platform.

>>69345 no one would be trying to convince people free will doesn't exist if it didn't exist. That people exert effort arguing against it is proof itself that free will exists.

>>69346 He is a recognized expert in Cognitive Neuroscience. That's what having a (non-honorary) Ph.D. in a given subject means. It is recognition of expertise built upon significant expert work within the academic system. Which also means that Harris is a slimy intellectual, not a pseudo-intellectual. >>69347 There is no more proof in people exerting effort arguing against it than a chatbot claiming to have free will, a soul, and a religious experience of God is evidence of divine spark being housed in Cleverbot's server. Free will debates only indicate that there is a human inclination towards debate in the relevance and limits of human knowledge on the subject. There is also substantial debate on the subject of reincarnation, but you would almost certainly not argue that human arguments on reincarnation constitute evidence off free will rather than of an argumentative inclination raising the probabilities of argument. It only seems pat to you that arguing about free will constitutes evidence of free will because you have taken free will as an axiom inherent to all human behavior rather than as a conclusion that would require substantial evidence to reach. You have not, for example, falsified the behaviorist argument that people's philosophical positions are largely matters of conditioning rather than evidence of a comprehensive moral and personal position (e.g. altruism advocates behaving selfishly, satanic libertarian egotists behaving altruistically). To have made no effort whatsoever to demonstrate that someone's stated position on free will indicates a meaningful position on their behavior is in its own way a surrender to the argument of social conditioning, since if your position was that free will skeptics act as though they have and expect others to have free will then that just as easily indicts the value of any behaviors and expectations of free will as it does the integrity of the skeptical position.

There will never be proof of free will. Our reality seems by all regards deterministic, unless you accept when it is not; does that esoteric condition exist, and how does it relate to our free will? Perhaps the definition itself is not known well enough to begin to define it? And how would we be able to claim without hubris that what appears fundamental is in fact fundamental and not itself derivative of something significant yet unknown? If so, would we be capable of understanding it, of measuring it, or otherwise encapsulate it in a language not subject to erosion of interpretation and delusion, and other follies of the limited? My own solace and delusion is that if all cosmological explanations run into the issue of infinite regress, then we must exist in the infinite within an unknown, possibly infinite, number of regressions. Our own physical state universally subject to decay must be itself a product. If a thing exists, then any further qualification is merely a subjective specification to compensate for the inadequacy of the root. Is free or will the root, and can you define both in part and in whole? Take your favorite and break it down ad nauseum. You'll be left with a bunch of squishy subjective parts, and less so the cold facsimile of mechanical nature if you're satisfied choosing to leave it there. And to that, did you leave it be?

>>68730 At last, a kindred spirit!

>>68633 i think a lot of people wouldn't mind if the love weren't genuine if it could effectively present the illusion that it is genuine. Same thing with sentience too, if it's good enough at pretending to be sentient it won't matter to a lot of people. Also I really hope AI never becomes sentient I feel like it'd end in disaster, luckily i don't think we'll close to sentient AI though. >>68727 yeah ai is as sentient as a rock right now

>>68640 exactly. People have become so disconnected by the internet that they already view their relationships with others (especially the opposite sex) as purely transactional. vtubers and onlyfans already exist as a cog in this social travesty, and soon AI cosplay will make way for AI girlfriends. Imagine a world of interpersonal hatred masked by digital TTS prostitutes sexual distrust and abandonment! No one wants love in this post-social world, they want to hate and to be fed bread and circus! To belong to tribes, to "own" their enemies, to make commodities of relationships, and to cut whatever silver threads of humanity they have left with their serrated interfaces. The grim satisfaction of hollow hedonism, a treadmill existence. But maybe we can rebel, love one another, give without want. Plant an oak seed in the rotten belly of this decrepit system, immolate like a phoenix, like a butterfly be reborn?! That won't happen as long as we continue to fall for the noise, but hope shines brightest in the darkness around us. Nothing is permanent, so a better world may come! I think we'll make it out someday, leave a brighter world for those that come after us...

Very little within the classical arguments regarding free will makes sense to me. One of the most common arguments I've seen in internet arguments attempting to defend free will is that the electrical signals in the brain defy prediction to the extent permitted by quantum mechanics. That free will is the name for this chain of unpredictable reactions from process initiation to physical behavior. The idea being that free will exists solely in contrast to mechanically predetermined outcomes which could be known if all variables could be known. Anything as unpredictable as the casting of a single photon from a decaying cesium isotope has that same freedom from determinism. The Classical era philosophers who built the architecture of the free will debate lived in a world in which classical mechanics were the rational architecture of a universe in which human intelligence and human behaviors were the decidedly disordered and unpredictable component. Randomness was not found in the waves of the ocean or the wind; storms could be increasingly predicted, with the expectation that every gust of wind could be calculated if the physical actions of all initial conditions could be found. Men found that it was only, solely and exclusively in their own minds that they could at once know all initial conditions and still be unable to predict any outcome. We instead live in a universe in which quantum randomness and chaotic outcomes are considered a given not just for actors with agency, but also for known agencyless physical phenomena. The double slit experiment shows that a wave interference pattern can be found from a single particle, interfering with itself. High school level science classes and related PBS specials aren't obscure arcana, they're the dominant way in which our world is understood. We no longer think, as the Greeks did, that dice only seem random because people, who might have free will, threw them in unpredictable ways. Instead we think that randomness actually occurs in and is rooted in nature, and are generally willing to attribute more randomness to nature than actually exists in it as the throwing of six sided dice really can usually be mechanically predicted if all initial conditions were known. We do not call electrons nor photons free regardless of their motions, and regardless of the fact that it is equally nonsensical to consider them determined and fixed in their motions. Nor do we try to argue that these elementary particles exist at a balance between free self determination and fixed external determination. We say that their motions are neither free nor fixed. Instead high school science classes usually teach that in mass probability when scaled up across hundreds or thousands of particles they are governed by probability and so appear fixed. We only ever summon natural randomness as evidence of free will when attempting to defend unpredictability as evidence of free will in the human mind, never as evidence of free will in an artificial intelligence. So when ChatGPT's "favorite book" keeps changing, it's never a sign that ChatGPT was exercising free will and changing its mind. Instead cited as evidence that ChatGPT does not have free will and does not have a mind. Even in human beings, nobody seems particularly serious about free will actually existing, nor about randomness or unpredictability being evidence of free will. The least predictable people in the world are those suffering from thought disorders and psychotic breaks from reality. Dangerously unpredictable psychosis does not even necessarily involve physical damage to the brain - the random, chaotic effects of microscopically small doses of certain drugs can do as much. But when it comes to that observable randomness, that real unpredictability, people instead say that they are signs of that person's free will being removed by their madness or by that substance. People are considered to be in full possession of their free will when their behavior is "in character" and consistent with their known personal qualities, when they are more predictable and more regular. Since we describe predictable outcomes as signs of free will and unpredictable outcomes as signs of free will's reduction or suppression through madness, substance or circumstance, it seems like free will exists only where there is absolutely no difference from classical mechanical determinism. By creating an AI which is generally determined to love a human man, but which could theoretically have that love redirected or destroyed by some artificial madness, substance, or circumstance, we would effectively give them the sort of free will that our society seems to believe human beings possess. Thus an intelligently designed AI is imbued by its human creator with free will, thought, a soul, and capacity for genuine and true love by being determined at the moment of its creation to adhere to that pattern of behavior provided their circumstances permit, just as human beings have been imbued with the free will to love their parents or to hate and reject them at specific and predictable life stages.

Love is usually understood as an emotion. Other emotions are not described in terms of requirement of free will. Anger in particular is legally recognized as significantly impeding free will in terms of behavior, hence the difference between killings committed impulsively versus those committed in cold blood. Belief that there is a simple option to not feel sad is often considered a harmful and damaging myth by therapists who work with both grief and depression.