I think maybe it's my own personal bias, but it does feel like anyone who pays money for an AI girlfriend really won't want it to disagree with them. I believe they'll want an idyllic and fantasy version of a relationship.
AI girlfriend that always agree with you and never contradict anything you say isn't going to be as addicting as an AI girlfriend who on occasion disagree with you.
While I grant that some and perhaps even most people won't want the AI girlfriend to disagree, there are some out there who treat arguments as a necessary and desirable spice in a relationship.
That said, I can't really think of anything that would be worth arguing with an AI over.
you are saying that the ai gf will not be like a real human female, but you are not making any argument that there is a defect in the bf's attachment to the gf.
I'd say the set of people who want an AI girlfriend and the set of people whose defining trait is a lack of empathy is probably a bigger overlap than you think.
I don't see how this is true. I would expect a man who accepts female rejection and stick with AI to have more empathy than the women who rejected him, because e.g he is ugly.
Harassing men for their lack of dating success and ascribing negative personality traits simply because they are down on their luck makes them more resentful so you should stop doing that. It's called having empathy.
> I'd say the set of people who want an AI girlfriend and the set of people whose defining trait is a lack of empathy is probably a bigger overlap than you think.
The defining trait of people who want an AI girlfriend is ugly, lonely men.
Is lack of empathy the defining characteristic of ugly men?
Or is it simply that people in general hate ugly people and thus ascribe various ills and character faults to them?
I'd say the set of people that disparage undesirable lonely men that desire AI girlfriend are usually those whose defining trait is severe lack of empathy. This is blatantly obvious here.
I know plenty of ugly men in committed, loving relationships. You're the one bringing up looks. I don't think it matters what you look like; if you want to date a computer you have some kind of psychiactric disorder.
Ok, but then there is also the increasing number of women who don't want a boyfriend either because they want a same sex relationship or because they can't find a man on their educational level, since women graduate at a higher rate. The reason is mostly irrelevant, what matters is that supply and demand are imbalanced and one side has to deal with not getting what they want in one way or another.
Education level is less important than equality is.
Marriage is traditionally a terrible bargain for women, but it was the only choice they were allowed to make. Now, they can make their money and buy property and have kids on their own.
A lot of men haven't realized the era of the provider is over and dead, and they're now optional. They have to make women want to be with them, and a lot of women just aren't willing to compromise on equality these days.
It may seem like this makes sense, but in most places it's the opposite. Low income women are single mothers at a higher rate than women with high salaries.
In most western countries, low income women do not become much poorer if they become single mothers. In some places, it increases their living standards. But for upper middle class families, a breakup tends to be costly.
Also, there seems to be shared causal factors that lead to both stable relationships and financial stability. Such as impulse control, mental/physical health and the ability to postpone gratification.
You don't need a house to have kids. Plenty of people don't and they do just fine. And if they're choosing to have a kid on their own, they've planned out finances, too. Fertility treatments aren't cheap.
>lot of men haven't realized the era of the provider is over and dead, and they're now optional.
Cool, child support and alimony optional now. Right? Because it's always easy to be independent with OPM. People forget single moms became far more practiced after the state incentivized breaking up families.
Whether they have a marriage certificate might not matter, but the stats are clear that children raised by single moms are correlated with a lot of bad outcomes including far more likely to end up victims of the prison industrial complex. If you only give a shit about yourself and not your offspring, maybe that doesn't matter
Just because "plenty" of ugly men might end up with something, does not pose a contradiction.
Nobody "wants" to be in a romantic relationship with an ugly person or computers.
Now just because some people end up doing that, does not mean that it is what they want.
It might just be the best option available to them.
Given the choice however they would always rather have someone handsome and gorgeous instead.
Looks are supremely crucially important for somebody to seriously crush on you, be genuinely infatuated with you and have a deep burning desire.
An ugly undesirable dude or ugly fat chick is not ever going to experience this, surely they might (or might not) end up with a pleasant relationship of convenience... but it is not what they want. Works of fiction and computers are the only way they can experience a glimpse of desire and infatuation aimed at them.
This really isn't that hard to understand for people who have empathy.
lack of empathy does not stand in the way of forming an attachment. Empathy is a good feature for keeping a partner, but the ai doesn't care about that. It feels like people on your side of the argument are making a sort of moral/judgmental argument, "if you can't hold up your side of the bargain, you don't deserve an ai gf"
If you can only bond with computer software and not other humans, there's something pathological going on there. You definitely have some severe issues that should be worked out in therapy.
