Where do you propose it take place? Because a lot of it ends up falling along the same ableist and otherwise bigoted lines as school bullying (e.g. I bet several of AG’s commenters are Kiwifarms freaks who do at least part-time hours unpaid harassing trans people).

Is immediate ability to buy anything you want necessarily a good thing?

Yes, but it’s probably fair to say that it’s being overemphasized in the OP.

What? Your argument is the same as what the UK press releases about the criminalization of BDSM media say,

I apologize, I edited in a part to explain the difference but was late in doing so

the mass market vanilla cishet slop as a commodification of women’s bodies aimed at incredibly boring chauvinist straight men,

Which is very easy to apply to the present subject

doesn’t hold water, nor does this salacious idea of chuds practicing abusing and tormenting their robot bang-maids.

I didn’t mean some elaborate BDSM thing, I just mean straightforward eroticized r___, which is also a very prevalent aspect of the “mass market vanilla cishet slop as a commodification of women’s bodies aimed at incredibly boring chauvinist straight men” that you correctly cite earlier. I can go into more detail of you really want me to, but I’ve been trying to spare us both that.

The person with a peanut allergy is threatened by the mass agriculture of peanuts, but we inherently recognize that banning all peanuts would be unfair to the vast majority of people who do not possess such an allergy.

I’m sure there are interesting points regarding nutrition and agriculture that could be made about peanuts, but from a lay perspective what I find to be an overwhelmingly salient difference is that it’s much easier to test for a peanut allergy, which of course does not cover the small minority of people who develop the allergy later in life (the more common version, pollen-food syndrome, is usually not seriously dangerous). That is not true about psychological issues, where yes you can look at psychosis (via much more intensive testing than peanut allergies) and put some people in the “definitely yes” category and most in the “almost certainly no (for now)” category, but there’s a much hazier boundary, even focusing on these two groups in the distribution and not the people who (so far) fall between.

I also think even beyond the diagnosis issue the matter of self-policing on not killing yourself with an allergen is not that similar to self-policing on being especially vulnerable to having the lying flattery robot loosen your grip on reality, for reasons that I would vaguely compare to but not equivocate with self-policing on consuming addictive substances.

Thus “AI psychosis” should be educated about and guarded against as should other psychologically addictive behavior.

A lot of this depends on if we’re talking about our present society or some imagined socialist one where there are regulations in place to prevent the product from being malicious. The trendy example is gambling. Obviously I don’t think people should be forbade from playing poker with their friends or whatever, but I don’t think mere education is enough of a guard to counterbalance the intensely predatory and ever-evolving practices of the industry, so we would need better substantiation on the “guarded against” part to take it seriously.

You can surely see how contemporary AI resembles this, where theoretically there are safeguards that could be put in place to make them much less dangerous, but we can’t count on that happening and should have some idea of what our stance on how the present versions should be treated is.

The “classic” opinion on hexbear is most certainly not that all media is apolitical, what the fuck are you talking about.

I was being facetious. I apologize for the confusion. I am very familiar with lengthy discussions on here about which media is reactionary and why.

And to preempt the escalation that I know is coming next: obviously that logic doesn’t hold if someone was harmed in the creation of the media itself, which is and should remain illegal

Contrary to your expectation, I at no point was going to bring up abuse materials, I understand that that’s a different subject and its reasons do not apply here.

or if the class of media is such that its proliferation would make enforcing the previous rule impossible, which is a real and predictable harm to society by a certain class of generated content that AI psychosis does not represent.

I don’t follow the allusion here, honestly, unless it’s a different gen-AI thing.

You’re just talking past me. You are alleging that what I am saying is connected to reinforcing the logic of the cishet patriarchy and the stigmatizing of sexual orientations that I guess you say I at least implicitly find “icky,” but you make no effort to connect what I said to this, you just described people with shitty positions that I do not have. You have not established a basis for my argument being a “transpositon”.

Edit: I want to add that I generally think BDSM practices are generally exactly the opposite here of any problem I am mentioning, because they are intensely intersubjective and require attention to consent and the perspective of your partner. The opposite is true with the sort of robots we are talking about, where one is going to some truly extreme lengths to engineer solipsistic sex and/or sexual abuse. I don’t know how relevant this is to the overall point, I just want to affirm a conceptual difference rather than leave it open-ended as I did.

I think it’s a bit too narrow to cite just addictive behavior but sure, we basically agree there, which makes me wonder why you made your initial point. Clearly, you can tell that these sorts of flattery machines that try to simulate human responses except anything you don’t want is stripped out and everything else that pleases you is added in can be bad for people, so when you have that same basic paradigm but the psychosis machine is hooked up to a detailed, lifelike robot for you to fuck, whether on the basis of it affectively wanting you to or not (or, frequently, going from one to the other while you continue fucking it all the same), suddenly those negative impacts on certain types of mentally vulnerable people disappear?

Say, totally unrelated, what do you think about media that, for example, eroticizes brutal sexual violence? Would you describe it as being a socially neutral thing? I know it’s the classic position of Hexbear that media is apolitical and doesn’t impact anything or anyone, so we shouldn’t bat an eye at the r___ and genocide simulators, but of course I want you to be able to speak for yourself.

Is AI psychosis made up?

While there are points of comparisons we can draw if you like, I don’t think think a little wicker doll or existing sex dolls or anything else are so similar to a life-sized, self-moving, reactive fake person who speaks to you that we can just say if one is fine then so is the other, though I already think existing sex dolls are probably not that good for some of their owners (people who are already particular varieties of psychologically vulnerable but clearly not being helped by this).

For the record, I also think something similar about other slave simulacra, though this is surely worse because for many just doing daily simulated sexual abuse is literally the one and only point of having it, and for many of the rest there’s someone more in line with traditional ideas of AI psychosis, of a fake partner who always agrees with you and if they don’t then you change their settings so they do.

But if we can acknowledge that the flattery robots can hurt your mental health, surely we can acknowledge that robots designed to receive sexual abuse with the same regularity and psychological untethering (of being able to dictate their responses) while being behaviorally grounded in a physical, lifelike simulacra of a victim presents cause for concern.

I’m not talking about any crime, that should be overtly obvious, I am talking about psychological impact from being constantly conditioned via this elaborate simulated “relationship” that you get to enact with great frequency.

Edit: as I said before, it’s just observably, blatantly true that things on the internet that have much less experiential reality or concrete, behavioral reinforcement than this can, at minimum, cause unwell people to be more unwell. This is just a worse version of it that it seems much more easily could produce, among other things, even more actual physical violence than the other things already do.

Is that true? Do you not believe there’s a negative psychological element from getting to physically, literally act out fantasies of sexually abusing a somewhat lifelike slave on maybe a daily basis that would have any impact on someone? I feel like people already get their worst traits aggressively cultivated by much more mild forms of facilitation.

Obviously some people would not be (that) seriously affected, but it doesn’t seem realistic to me to say that there would be no negative impact overall on the, uh, userbase of sex slave simulacra.

I don’t think people are generally yelling at you, they are just saying that having a simulated sex slave (yes, that is generally what it would be) is probably not helpful to the project of making people more pro-social.

While atomized, americanized types would certainly connect many civil rights to “inidividualism,” there is clearly nothing inherently “individualist” about supporting gay marriage (etc.). You are making the liberals’ case for them.

“Collectivism” doesn’t mean “everyone needs to be made into the same person,” it means that society is formed around an interest in the common good, and gay people having civil rights is part of the common good.

I think there is argument about where it came from but the “12” is usually said to have been part of the designation of a narcotics unit before being generalized to cops in general.

I see, perhaps I misunderstood and conflated your position with those of a few others in this thread. Are you saying that we therefore should distinguish Judaism from Zionism? If so, I apologize, though I can’t tell if it was written unclearly or my reading comprehension failed me.

With tens of billions of dollars spent directly on hijacking every Jewish institution for decades with the continuous backing of the entire western media apparatus and literal espionage and sabotage done against antizionist Jewish activists domestically, I don’t think it’s that surprising that it’s a small number, though I am pretty sure in America it is higher than 10%.

whining that Judaism is separate and distinct from Zionism, and most Zionists aren’t jewish and so on, is centering jewish feelings and crybully behavior that protects Zionist jewish institutions and people from anti-Zionism. There are many jewish institutions in the US and more in the UK that are linked to and materially support the Zionist entity and we can’t be whining about needing to protect them from anti-Zionism.

What are you saying? Obviously Zionist institutions, Jewish and gentile, all need to be crushed. If a synagogue is holding auctions for Palestinian land, everyone and thing involved in that needs to be mercilessly torn down. Same with those Zionist Jewish summer camps and all the other ways Zionism has sought to hijack all Jewish culture and pervert it into something strictly oriented toward supporting Israel.

There’s nothing “crybully” about observing this hijacking and not doing actual antisemitism by treating the religion of observing Jewish people as synonymous with a genocidal colonial project, because the logic of that would be fundamentally that we need to ban Judaism and put every Rabbi in prison, which we both understand is absurd. A meaningful number of Jewish people are antizionists – personally, the most dedicated antizionist activists I’ve known are Jewish – and that number is only growing. Conflating their religion or ethnicity with the project of Zionism like AIPAC and the ADL are literally working every day to encourage people to do is ideologically extremely backwards, whether you think any kind of victimhood of Jews is currently meaningful or meaningless (a point that I am not arguing).

Even sillier, they are mostly talking about IUDs, or at least when I’ve seen this before that’s what they cite.

but I’m a pedant . . .

Sometimes they are also cartoon racists, like that time they basically cited phrenology to explain that Turks aren’t white

Of course there is. There is nothing America loves more than a natural disaster or building collapse in China, except of course for a militant insurgency or a real or fake massacre of civilians.

That’s why it’s weird that the notes are contradicting it, but that’s in large part because they are based on user input.

Nah, there’s a good chance someone who calls themselves a piece of shit really is one, and people who self-flaggelate about being a piece of shit without doing anything to address the ways in which that is meaningfully true (I am emphatically not counting OP as this!) are insufferable assholes and usually attention-seeking pits of performative self-loathing.

I don’t think opiumfree is one of those people, they seem like a decent person to me, I’m just arguing against self-deprecation (and whatever fucked up form of self-pity it often is) qualifying as even a heuristic for someone being decent.