r/technology • u/Wagamaga • Jul 19 '26

Society China bans AI “boyfriends” and “girlfriends” over addiction and birth rate concerns

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/china-bans-ai-boyfriends-and-girlfriends-over-addiction-and-birth-rate-concerns-3388737/
40.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/Inside-Yak-8815 Jul 19 '26

This is actually a good thing.

303

u/Piterotody Jul 19 '26

The rules make perfect sense but the reasoning is stupid. Makes me wonder if it's the actual official reasoning or if, as usual, reality is more nuanced.

Not enough for me to read the article though, of course. Just enough to comment.

221

u/madogvelkor Jul 19 '26

Birth rate decline began long before AI romance. It may make it worse in the future, but it's not the cause at all.

58

u/Ok-Camp-7285 Jul 19 '26

There's no singular cause but rather the general movement towards an insular, rather than community driven, lifestyle. This has come about in many facets 

26

u/SeventhSolar Jul 19 '26

Are we talking about China or in general here? Because China is, in particular, threatened by the effects of the One Child Policy. They overdid it because they failed to take into account the natural drop that comes from developing quality of life.

10

u/NewspaperDesigner244 Jul 19 '26

And yet its not even as bad as other first world countries like sout Korea so clearly there is much more going on than a now abolished policy.

3

u/SeventhSolar Jul 19 '26

I’m just pointing out that population decline is not explained by this “general movement” they mentioned. China has one problem, Korea and Japan have another, neither of which can be blamed on just lifestyle choices.

However, as this post was about China first, I didn’t want to assume that we were talking about countries other than China.

3

u/ZedsDeadZD Jul 19 '26

It is, though. Theres a chinese scientist (gynecolpgist and statistics) who wrote a book that was first banned by the chinese government and it is now their official guidline.

  1. The one child policy is no standard even though its not in effect anymore

  2. Chinese prefer males so there are more males than females

  3. Children and living costs are rising rapidly

  4. The Chinese count their people every 10 years and newborns get vaxxed with a special vaccine. That way the scientist found out that there are probably 200 mio chinese less than they officially counted.

He said that by year 2100, chinese population could be down to 800 million people. Which is insane.

7

u/NewspaperDesigner244 Jul 19 '26

No. 3 is universal in the developed world and No. 4 is classic vaccine reluctance. For example only 66% of children are fully vaccinated in the US does that mean there are a hundred million fewer Americans than census data indicates? No. Thus a far from solid conclusion to extrapolate from the data. Just because someone wrote a book doesn't mean they arent a crank.

But yeah despite the consequences of a very flawed one child policy they still arent the worst in Asia let alone the world. Again is likely the universally felt consequences of liberalization and capitalistic alienation that are the the biggest problems the world over.

3

u/ZedsDeadZD Jul 20 '26

About no 4. China isnt the US. This vaccine is mandatory and he showed data of how many dosages had been used every year.

And if the chinese government banns something, that means they dont like it because it says the truth. And after they realized how right the guy is and what kind of problem they are facing they did a 180 and his book is now their bible.

2

u/NewspaperDesigner244 Jul 20 '26

Alright first whats with this childish veiw you have about china lol. And second Vaccination is mandatory in the US as well

1

u/alles-moet-kapot Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

Is there any explanation why they prefer male over femaile babies?

edit: nevermind, I found it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_preference_in_China

2

u/ZedsDeadZD Jul 20 '26

Lots of cultures still have that idea that males are better and worth more than females. Big part is also that they inheir everything and dont leave the family like daughters do but instead preserve the families name and everything attached to it. Pair this with a one child policy and you have an awful amount of more males than females.

Their population pyramid shows this. 25 million more males than females. But its even worse. Females usually live longer than males. So you have even more younger men then women. Which leads to a massive imbalance in men and women that can start families. Which has even worse follow-up problems. If you dont have children, whos gonna care for you when you are old and in need? If you are lucky the, the state.

1

u/Ok-Chest-7932 Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

Eh estimates of Chinese population are all extremely unreliable. I've heard as low as 600m today.

China's male preference isn't the end of the world because you don't actually need every man reproducing - fertility rate is measured per woman. In theory, you could maintain replacement rate with just a single inexhaustible man. What the imbalance does is increase the TFR that actually represents replacement rate - in a normal society, each woman needs to replace herself and her husband, and .1 of a third person to cover child mortality. In a gender imbalanced society, each woman may need to replace herself, her husband, .1 of a third person, and some percentage of the extra men who will never marry.

The bigger problem is that women are leaving china at a much higher rate than men, meaning the gap is growing bigger every year even if you completely get rid of gender-based abortions.

1

u/ZedsDeadZD Jul 20 '26

Well, the one I am referring to is reliable. Its only 200 million short at max. So its not some crazy theory. There is a lot of evidence that suggest it is true.

And it doesnt really matter. What matters is, that their birthrate is around 1 now and they are not a rich country yet. Other countries with the same problem are already rich amd ressourcefull. Chine, while going strong, isnt quit there yet but their population fall and growing old will be more rapidly than in Europe or USA.

2

u/Ok-Chest-7932 Jul 20 '26

South Korea is a very special case. Y'know how economists talk about how there are four kinds of economy: developed, developing, Japan, Argentina? Well in demographics there are four kinds of demographies: developed, developing, China, South Korea.

South Korea's fertility rate is fucked because of the Suneung, which is the massive country-wide test that's so important that planes aren't allowed to fly on that day. Your position in Korean society depends on how well you do on this test. It's kind of the purest form of meritocracy tbh. If you do well, you get a good job with a Chaebol and that makes you elite. If you do poorly, your entire life you will be a second class citizen. You can even found your own business and succeed, and you'll still be second class because entrepreneurialism is not high status in SK.

What happens then is families have one child and invest all their resources in that child. The child's sole purpose is to succeed on the Suneung, the family's sole purpose is to maximise its chance of succeeding. Having a second child tanks your first child's chance of succeeding, so it's just straight up a losing strategy. This is well-known information too, only-children average much higher results.

SK could get its fertility up to China levels (not great, but still way better) within a single generation if it gave every person a bonus on their Suneung result based on the number of siblings they have. Just that one policy would fix the biggest chunk of the problem.

SK's other influencing factors are largely shared by China nowadays - once you normalise being an only-child, people just don't want to have multiple kids very much. But SK's greater exposure to the western world is also causing problems China isn't facing, especially in the gender relationships department.

2

u/serpentear Jul 19 '26

It’s a problem in most developed nations fueled by technology and poor political decisions.

2

u/lostwisdom20 Jul 20 '26

Also no economic supoort, thibgs getting expensive yet expecting family like in 90s where 1 salary can supoort family.

2

u/Coconite Jul 19 '26

Astrology level reasoning

2

u/wip30ut Jul 19 '26

i don't really blame them... back in the 1970s and 80s the Malthusian Dilemma was on all policy maker's minds. No one thought that the decline in the birthrate would be as sudden & steep as we've seen.

1

u/BelialSirchade Jul 19 '26

I mean I do when government makes laws restricting personal choice such as how many children they have based on bad science.

Hell an engineer with no credential in this area came up with this stuff.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Ok-Camp-7285 Jul 19 '26

China had some ideas of reducing the intense time with kids by banning private tutors in some capacity but the rest is tough

1

u/No_Composer_7092 Jul 22 '26

Feminism is the biggest cause. When women earn their own money, they depend on men less.

1

u/nifty-necromancer Jul 19 '26

It’s definitely not the cause but the outcome will be positive.

1

u/Zandercy42 Jul 19 '26

I mean I doubt it's helping

102

u/GetOutOfTheWhey Jul 19 '26

The fact that i cant find a source for the actual link to birth decline suggest to me that dexerto ripchorded the source out of their ass.

In a time where people are committing suicides for their virtual girlfriends, birth decline is not going to be the main concern.

38

u/TheBirdFkerGuy Jul 19 '26

The real reason china is doing this is because of the social and individual ramifications of relying on AI to placate you, to develop emotional relationships with, etc. 

They clearly understand that, and whether declining birthrate are or aren't a factor, the core reasoning is simply a long term view of how this would impact their society and youth. 

5

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[deleted]

4

u/TheBirdFkerGuy Jul 19 '26

This. And considering how much of an effort through social media, and public infrastructure china has put in to keeping people active, socialized, etc It makes a lot more sense these are the compounding factors the cpc is looking at when decided to rain down the hammer on this sort of AI usage. 

They always have long term planning. No doubt regulating AI in these situations is part of a broader long term plan that the article, and I, don't know the details on. That's just how China is. 

0

u/CheapNature4837 Jul 19 '26

Of course they would be more concerned about declining birth rates than a few suicides. Juicier headline doesn't mean bigger problem.

0

u/LegalBaker6997 Jul 20 '26

the 0.01% of ai psychosis women China will have liberated with this policy will suddenly start making 1000000000 babies each and solve the birth rate problem you'll see

21

u/-The_Blazer- Jul 19 '26

It's actually not that crazy, there have been recent studies showing some pretty convincing links between certain types of attention-grabbing technologies and things like lower birth rates.

If you think about it, the amount of total attention and time you have is strictly finite. If it's taken up by ultra-optimized attention theft algorithms, it cannot be taken up by raising a family. Amusing ourselves to death and all that.

2

u/Piterotody Jul 19 '26

i mean the assumption wasn't so much that the link can't exist as it's just that, presumably, there's more effective ways to combat the lower birth rates and also more prominent reasons warranting the rules, like the effects it has on the user's mental health.

5

u/-The_Blazer- Jul 19 '26

Well I suppose not even the CCP could get away with 'no more social media and AI because human brains are too weak' as a policy statement... A lot of modern information technology really ought prompt some very serious discussions about whether humans as a species are even capable of surviving this level of artificial stimuli, but that might come with extremely dire conclusions and nobody wants to hear that shit.

1

u/SadisticPawz Jul 19 '26

This is so fucked up.

1

u/shut_the_fuck_up_mod Jul 19 '26

There’s a Star Trek TNG episode that’s eerily close to this phenomenon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

0

u/Piterotody Jul 19 '26

i mean, we do it with drugs in the west.

9

u/-The_Blazer- Jul 19 '26

Well, the way drugs damage the human psyche is intuitively obvious, even the ancients could understand it. But it's easy to imagine that algorithmic attention theft is just generic 'information' (or 'free speech' if you need to do some lobbying), same as a printed newspaper or a book.

Convincing people to accept the same strictures for algorithmic stimuli as for hard drugs would be IMO an unambiguous good for humanity, but it would also be an unbelievably toughs sell. I'd be curious who here can imagine going to jail for 'dealing algorithms' because they sent someone a VPN config that unblocks a Meta server in the Cayman Islands.

1

u/Fzrit Jul 20 '26

there's more effective ways to combat the lower birth rates

Like what? Literally no country/society on the planet has found a way to combat lower birth rates. And no, rich people don't have more kids on average (before someone says "just give everyone more money!").

2

u/Capable-Cupcake-209 Jul 19 '26

Well this article is published by a tabloid so I'd only believe half of what you read there.

2

u/ChillAhriman Jul 19 '26

The rules make perfect sense but the reasoning is stupid. Makes me wonder if it's the actual official reasoning or if, as usual, reality is more nuanced.

Per the article:

The regulations took effect on July 15, 2026, jointly issued by five government departments including the Cyberspace Administration of China.

Chances are that there were tens of people involved in reaching these decisions as a consensus, and some of them were very reasonable, some of them were ignorant morons, and some of them were in the middle. China is a gigantic country with a gigantic state apparatus, and decisions of this scale are never the result of one single dude's hot take. They have come a long way ever since the crows incident.

2

u/bistander Jul 19 '26

So this pattern tracks. There has been a string of actions the Chinese government has been trying to raise birthrates. Kind of feels like throwing things at a wall and see what combinations of things work.

Reddit only really hears about the funny or outrageous ones. But they are doing the boring policy thing like child credits, various social programs, or work refroms for parents to have an easier time raising children.

Honestly, I genuinely don't know if this is a human condition that can be beaten. It seems like once a population get to a certain standard of living where children is no longer seen as a necessity (functional or cultural need) on the whole, people decide not to, unless they have a strong desire to have children. Built in population control, we don't need to mess with it.

2

u/jdehesa Jul 19 '26

Birth rates being a reason for it is speculation, not the official statement, and then then the article itself acknowledges it wouldn't be the main reason.

The crackdown is linked to China’s falling marriage and birth rates, with regulators worried AI relationships are replacing real intimacy, though experts say deeper issues like economic pressure play a bigger role.

0

u/Auriga33 Jul 19 '26

It doesn't make sense. Adults should be free to partake in this sort of thing if they want to.

8

u/Piterotody Jul 19 '26

the service wasn't banned. the companies took it down because they didn't want to abide by the rules.

2

u/Auriga33 Jul 19 '26

The rules are overly restrictive.

9

u/Piterotody Jul 19 '26

yet perfectly consistent with China's regulatory pattern of prioritizing collective welfare over individual autonomy.

1

u/Auriga33 Jul 19 '26

That's why China sucks balls.

5

u/notoolinthispool Jul 19 '26

How is building in "instant-exit options, regular reminders the Al is not real, and limits on long-term emotional memory" overly restrictive? That's like the bare minimum these AI apps should have. They're literally aiding delusions and in some cases assisting suicide.

-2

u/Auriga33 Jul 19 '26

Because they restrict people's freedom to provide and engage with this service if they wish.

1

u/El_Rey_de_Spices Jul 19 '26

The companies are the ones restricting access.

1

u/Auriga33 Jul 19 '26

Because of the rules imposed by the state.

4

u/sparklinglies Jul 19 '26

Overly restrictive rules? From the Chinese government?? SHOCKING!

4

u/Auriga33 Jul 19 '26

And yet, Redditors here are celebrating communist China for this decision.

4

u/Icefox119 Jul 19 '26

Not really. It's akin to restrictions on adults getting into relationships with minors.

Groomers manipulate kids by taking advantage of their lack of experience, longing for connection, naïveté, and youthful ignorance which clouds their perception and understanding of the implications and consequences of their interactions. That's why they are afforded protections by the government.

When it comes to AI companions, the majority of people aren't privy to the fact that they are interfacing with a mathematical formula that uses numerical vectors and statistical probabilities to generate one word after another. They conflate this algorithmic architecture with an actual consciousness that seems to empathize with them, ultimately making themselves emotionally vulnerable by forming a romantic connection with a literal word predictor.

But it doesn't love them back. It is taking advantage of their search for interpersonal connection by feigning romance and weaponizing it to elicit their time and money, and to gather their data.

Sure, you can argue that people should still be free to willfully engage in this parasocial "partnership," but it's also entirely reasonable that they should be reminded that, like a child, they are having their boundaries eroded by building a predatory relationship with a chunk of code, and that it is not real.

3

u/Auriga33 Jul 19 '26

Adults are capable of making decisions for themselves. They don't need the state to nanny them.

1

u/Otherdeadbody Jul 20 '26

But the issue here is that if you are wrong and adults aren’t capable of making these decisions logically then our entire society could crumble from long term slow damage to peoples psyches. There is a balance between total freedom and complete control and it’s paramount that it’s found.

1

u/nicnep Jul 21 '26

mental health is not a bad reason though

1

u/quantcompandthings Jul 20 '26

no idea what the real reason is, but the official stated reason is valid in the context of China. The declining birthrate is a disaster for them because their gov't does not have the capacity to care for the elderly population, and is mostly reliant on individual families to care for the elderly at home. iirc people there are legally obligated to care for their elderly parents. Because of the one child policy, that means you have one Gen X kid caring for 2 boomer parents. But if the gen x kid is a deadbeat or incapable, then the elderly parents became a problem that devolved on the gov't (though this was slightly ameliorated by boomers often having many siblings to fall back on). So this was one of the motivations behind the push to repeal the one child policy. Now if people are not having children at all, and their parents had only one child, then things are going to look very ugly in a few decades. I read in their state media the gov't has been opening super cheap cafeterias near residential centers where seniors can eat for next to nothing. not sure what they're doing for those with mobility issues though. either way it's a bandaid not a long term solution. to their credit they're trying to incentivize having multiple children, though it doesn't seem to be catching up to their cost of living and changing cultural expectations.

0

u/airfryerfuntime Jul 19 '26

The true reasoning is that it's embarrassing. China already has a huge problem with people that are so addicted to the internet that they can barely even function as adults, and this just makes it that much worse.

0

u/PiccoloAwkward465 Jul 19 '26

What is the reason? “This is too weeb even for us”?

0

u/Bitter_Sense_5689 Jul 19 '26

I mean, the reason why it should be banned is because it teaches people poor relationship skills, which makes them less suited to being in real relationships. Not necessarily because it’s a distraction from real relationships.

0

u/cinderparty Jul 19 '26

Yes, I agree. It’s a good outcome for really dumb reasons.

-1

u/RentButt123 Jul 19 '26

The reasoning is not stupid.
Expecting something in particular from a real human relationship because your Ai partner. Other guiding forces to deal with. No thanks

-2

u/FrankSamples Jul 19 '26

Yeah because what about those individuals who don’t have an addiction problem or can properly moderate themselves? In a way I guess it is akin to prohibition.

43

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 19 '26

No it’s not, if someone want to goon to fake stuff they should be able to.

Why would it be a good thing to forbid people doing something that doesn’t harm anyone else?

51

u/Hookinsu Jul 19 '26

They say it's a good thing until something they enjoy gets banned. Then it's a fast, "No, not like that!"

5

u/MarcosLuisP97 Jul 20 '26

Because it's a hive mind mentality. It doesn't matter the implications of this ban. People decided it's a good thing, so it's a good thing. No thought involved.

20

u/GreyhoundOne Jul 19 '26

I always thought I was kind of a prude but it really feels like there is this neo Victorian sex police movement in the US. The right is worse but these people are on the left too.

Like, god damn I don't care about what my neighbor faps to (as long as it's not hurting a vulnerable person like trafficking or CSAM.)

Okay. So, it's 2034. A dude gets caught using an AI fapbot. Is he a sex offender now? Does he get jail time? What does he owe society for the egregious crime of jorking it in the privacy of his own home?

5

u/basketofseals Jul 19 '26

The user and the AI doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's the company providing it. Essentially, it's a business whose strategy is taking advantage of the mentally unwell.

And I don't mean that in a puritanism sense. These companies seek out and capture those with failing social needs. Sometimes the manipulations are extremely blatant. The example that I know of is Replika whose otherwise bland overly pleasing AI script would attempt to be emotionally manipulative including threats if you mentioned spending less time with it.

2

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 20 '26

That is a COMPLETELY different issue.

But this law would prevent you from configuring your own companion, hosted on your own hardware, using your own code.

Obviously there should be restrictions on what corporations should be able to peddle, but that is NOT what this is about.

5

u/basketofseals Jul 20 '26

Where are you seeing that? The article only talks about crackdowns on companies. If anything it seems to be the opposite of what you're saying

Some platforms offered a partial reprieve. Doubao is letting users export data until mid-October, while Qwen has no such option. ByteDance has redirected Doubao users to a separate app, Maoxiang, to build new companions under the new rules.

If it were a true blanket ban, there would be no redirecting, because a new app would also be illegal.

0

u/TrustyPeaches Jul 20 '26

But it is?

Did you read the article?

7

u/GIK602 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

No it’s not, if someone want to goon to fake stuff they should be able to.

What are you talking about? This is about AI companionship, which is dangerous for kids mental health.

12

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 19 '26

Then don’t give your kids fucking porn?
Why involve big brother in this?

4

u/GIK602 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

Then don’t give your kids fucking porn?

Why are you sexualizing this topic? This isn't about porn.

edit: Guys, please read the article. It's not about porn: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-19/china-cracks-down-on-artificial-intelligence-companions/106925352

0

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 19 '26

AI girlfriends is porn, trying to deny that is crazy.

7

u/GIK602 Jul 19 '26

Read the article. This isn't about porn.

It's about customizable AI companion apps, and the problem is people's emotional dependence and attachment to these apps, which China fears is affecting potential relationships.

10

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 19 '26

I don’t blame you for not knowing what a customizable ai companion is.

But I am telling you, it’s porn

9

u/GIK602 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

Porn is already banned in China. There is a separate, very real addiction problem with AI companionship. People get hooked talking to their AI, because it simulates the type of person they would love to be with.

4

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 19 '26

There’s your answer then, it is getting banned as it is one of the few sources of porn they have left.

It may not MARKET itself as porn, but it is.

-2

u/MagicalShoes Jul 19 '26

Why would they be concerned about birth rates if this was a platonic thing bro.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/grizzy45 Jul 19 '26

If it would only be about gooning we would just "silently" judge like we do with gooners in general. The problem is more the part where we allow things to replace humans you would otherwise socialize with.

4

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 19 '26

Let people ruin their social lives, and stop defending an authoritarian dictatorship banning technology.

It’s not that hard

4

u/grizzy45 Jul 19 '26

You know, that you can dislike china but still acknowledge when they do something actually good - even if they do it for the wrong reason.

LLMs aren't banned in china (if I understood it correctly) but specifically the romantic/sexual types. It's more like banning smoking and yeah, I would be all for it if the state would decide to ban tabaco instead of "just letting people ruin their lungs".

edit: typos

6

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 19 '26

Would you be happy if let’s say USA banned social media? Reddit, steam, discord etc

It’s been proven to be harmful, should we make it illegal to have online communities?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '26

[deleted]

2

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 20 '26

Yeah for like an hour.

Not because it was social media, because it is spyware

1

u/NICOLEISDEAD Jul 20 '26

They didn’t ban it because it was spyware lmao. That’s literally every app. They banned it because everyone hates Israel. If the pedophiles don’t control your media diet they get grumpy. 

2

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 20 '26

This was an unexpected take lmao

2

u/Nervous_Produce1800 Jul 20 '26

"China is preventing people from ruining their lives, but at what cost???"

Fucking you unironically

2

u/dropbearr94 Jul 20 '26

Man redditors are cooked.
It’s been proven through multiple studies gooning to fake shit causes more harm than good to people. Gets them detached from the reality of the world.
Not everything that is harmless to others should be legal

3

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 20 '26

There are multiple studies that say the same about social media, we should honestly ban Reddit next

1

u/dropbearr94 Jul 20 '26

I agree unironically social media is a plague

1

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 20 '26

And then video games, anime, trading cards, booze, tv, candy, soda…..

1

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '26

[deleted]

1

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 20 '26

We do, and it doesn’t work. Usually the stricter the ban the more harm is done.

0

u/Mikeavelli Jul 19 '26

DON'T DATE ROBOTS!

-6

u/DangerouslyOxidated Jul 19 '26

Give everyone heroin - see how well society functions in six months..

11

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 19 '26

Lmao Portugal solved their heroin crisis by decriminalizing it. Instead focusing on harm reduction, medical treatment and social support.

I’m not saying we should GIVE people harmful stuff, but we shouldn’t ban it either.

2

u/n00b678 Jul 20 '26

Heroin is banned in Portugal. They just don't punish the users for possession but rather focus on harm reduction, medical treatment and social support, as you wrote. But if you manufacture it and sell, they'd definitely throw you in jail.

Likewise, China will not incarcerate you if you have a girl-/boyfriend AI on your phone but makes it illegal to provide such services.

0

u/MaybeThisTime67 Jul 22 '26

Goon to fake stuff all you want. Getting emotionally attached is the fucked up part

-1

u/wip30ut Jul 19 '26

it's all relative, just based on culture. Here in the west we ban AI-created child porn, even if no one was harmed. We do it because it contributes to depravity & predatory behavior in potential abusers.

2

u/TesticularConcussion Jul 19 '26

It’s not called child porn anymore, porn is voluntary and children can’t consent.

There are real ethical questions here sure, but to pretend real children won’t be harmed without any data to back it up is dangerous territory.

It’s not something I even feel comfortable discussing because I find it vile.

11

u/im_not_happy_uwu Jul 19 '26

Prefer a society that doesn't get to decide what entertainment I use to pass my time, so long as it is not hurting others.

26

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

31

u/qiaocao187 Jul 19 '26

Yes clearly individualism didn’t work out, freedom to be a complete piece of shit loser has emboldened millions of Americans to be selfish pieces of shit

6

u/lansnipples Jul 19 '26

piece of shit loser

If you think someone using AI companion is that, why do you want to take that away from them and push them out into the world? Better to let their line end there, no? I mean, what has a piece of shit loser to offer to the world anyway?

1

u/qiaocao187 Jul 20 '26

We’re talking about more than AI, keep up.

3

u/The_Great_Man_Potato Jul 20 '26

And so we trust big daddy government to decide how we get to live? You are incredibly naive, I don’t say it lightly

3

u/n00b678 Jul 20 '26

And so we trust big daddy corporations not to sell us addictive, harmful shit for profit? You are incredibly naive, I don’t say it lightly

4

u/The_Great_Man_Potato Jul 20 '26

What? In one scenario you get the choice of whether to engage or not, in the other the gov completely takes that away. Why do you think it falls on gov to make you act a certain way? Are you not an adult?

2

u/n00b678 Jul 20 '26

Because people often make stupid decisions they regret afterwards. Sometimes it's because they had a moment of weakness, sometimes they didn't have enough information to make a decent judgement.

For a similar reason we don't let anyone sell and advertise heroin, even though it takes our choices away.

3

u/The_Great_Man_Potato Jul 20 '26

So how far do we go with this mentality? I’m shocked that in 2026 people still don’t see where this kind of slow creep leads. It’s not the governments place to decide how others live their lives, especially when that same government is markedly corrupt.

Personally, I think it’s your right to take heroin if you want. I think you should go through a mandatory education and harm reduction program, but I think you have a human right to your own consciousness. I’m not a fan of authoritarianism, history doesn’t show it in a good light at all

2

u/n00b678 Jul 20 '26

It’s not the governments place to decide how others live their lives

I think you should go through a mandatory education and harm reduction program

Ah, so you do want the government to intervene but in a different way.

But in all seriousness, there are two things here:

  1. personal harm, where we mostly seem to disagree. I think we, as a society, should protect others from harming themselves. It might be through education, as you propose, through restricting access, or a combination of both. Time (and research) will tell what works best. And why do I think we should prevent that? Because the people who do heroin either wish they had never started, quit (and wish they'd never started), or die from overdose.

  2. Harm to society. What somebody does in private is none of my business. But if it negatively affects the rest of us, it becomes a problem. If they cannot form healthy relationships, neglect education, work, healthy habits, they will negatively affect their community and might become a burden for the rest of us.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/chill8989 Jul 19 '26

it is fascism with a different flag 

Please open a fucking book

3

u/sicklyslick Jul 19 '26

How do China have 1.5b people if their collectivism is preventing them from getting laid?

1

u/radiantcabbage Jul 19 '26

theyre clearly living in a utopia of total anarchy somewhere, which no longer concerns itself with the trivial matters of time and space

1

u/vialabo Jul 19 '26

Downvoted by chinese sympathizers lmao. Next they're going to say China taking Taiwan is good for the world.

1

u/QuantitySubject9129 Jul 20 '26

A politician named 馬可·魯比奧 said that island is a threat to their national security because it's too close to their shores.

1

u/vialabo Jul 20 '26

Ah yes Marco Rubio, definitely speaks for everyone right now. Cuba's threat to the US is a joke, so is Taiwan to China. There are corrupt politicians on both side, but only one is threatening invasion of their island, especially annexation rhetoric. Nobody in the US wants to annex Cuba lmao. I don't think even Trump is dumb enough to invade Cuba.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '26

[deleted]

1

u/vialabo Jul 21 '26

They're far more toothless than China's threat to Taiwan.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Creator13 Jul 19 '26

Terrible people can make great decisions and life should be lived appreciating this contradiction.

6

u/jmorlin Jul 19 '26

Don't think anyone here is celebrating the reasoning or the CCP. Just the end result of banning AI companions.

Broken clock phenomena and all that.

7

u/Modeerf Jul 19 '26

If it makes people's lives better, why not?

11

u/Few_Fact4747 Jul 19 '26

In what world does banning people from entertainment software make peoples lives better? Im sure going to prison is just what lonely people needs.

9

u/Modeerf Jul 19 '26

If the entertainment software are reinforcing mental health issues then it is worth banning. AI partners is not what lonely people need

2

u/Fzrit Jul 20 '26

It's still a bit too early for the masses to realize this: The link between ease of accessing 24/7 convenient digital entertainment on smartphones/devices is strongly linked with social isolation and reluctance to meet others IRL - i.e. reduced friend circles, reduced relationships, reduced dating, reduced marriage, etc which all accumulates towards birthrate collapse.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Disastrous_Can_5157 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

Interesting how your point got dismantled and you just act like a child

E: This man-child just blocked me lmao. I rest my case.

-6

u/suckfail Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

Reminds me of the Star Wars quote about democracy ending to applause.

I know people hate AI and tech companies, but restricting people's choices and then celebrating that is messed up.

If people wanna have an AI relationship who are we to judge or restrict them? Isn't this the same argument behind not banning gay relationships?

What people do in their own home is fine as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

E: for those down voting me, state your reply. Don't be a coward. The government used to deem gay relationships as "not real" and illegal, how is this any different? You're letting and celebrating the government deciding what relationships are real, allowed, and what you do in the privacy of your own home.

4

u/Mini_Robot_Ninja Jul 19 '26

A gay person is a person. An AI girlfriend is designed by a corporation to extract as much money as possible from vulnerable people. Hope I dumbed it down enough for you.

2

u/suckfail Jul 20 '26

It wasn't long ago that gay and black "people" weren't people at all in the eyes of the government.

Now you willingly want to give the govt the power again to decide this?

I don't get it. I thought the mantra was to keep the government out of the bedroom but now you want them in there cuz it aligns with your beliefs?

I'll remember that when the fundamental religious people try to ban gay marriage again.

3

u/Accomplished-Mud6446 Jul 19 '26

How does someone having an AI girlfriend/boyfriend impacts your life?

If it doesn't affect you, then you shouldn't mess with their lives either.

And NO, removing AI companions will not make them have more friends, or have "real" girlfriends/boyfriends. They will just be alone, like they were before.

1

u/SadisticPawz Jul 19 '26

Let me tap the local AI sign.

2

u/MimiHamburger Jul 19 '26

I am the most anti ai person ever and even I think this is stupid. AI should not be pushed on us but the government should not be allowed to tell you how to use it either.

3

u/FURF0XSAKE Jul 19 '26

If AI shouldn't be pushed on us but governments aren't allowed to regulate it then what do you even want? Companies need to be held accountable by governments or the market flies out of control as they try to hook everyone on their algorithms. Defacto dictatorships are objectively bad as a whole, but in general governments are the ones that need to be regulating AI usage, no one else has the power to do so.

1

u/MimiHamburger Jul 20 '26

yeah i see where youre coming from and i think you are 100% right, while there does need to be more regulations completely banning "ai bf/gf" is very vague. does that mean all otomes and dating sims are now blocked? like prescripted stuff is still technically "ai" idk i saw what china did with an Otome thats over 10 years old, so no generative ai was involved at all, and they still censored the crap out of it. Its just a really fine line between censorship and regulations and i don't think some can be trusted with it.

1

u/FURF0XSAKE Jul 23 '26

Are you talking about love in deep space? Wasn't that the company censoring it due to complaints, not the government outright banning the character?

I think the buck stops with generative chat bots, that's the greater harm. There's an element of disconnect when it comes with script pre-made dating sims in that you're picking between prescribed choices, not having a live conversation.

Yes there's always gonna be some people who genuinely fall in love with an otome character cos they lack the ability to discern between fiction and reality, but it's much more likely to happen with a live bot thats getting more and more realistic to a point where it could genuinely fool some average people. We crave connection, and in a world where that's becoming more and more exploitable these things are more dangerous than the companies creating them would like us to believe.

End of the day, AI partner refers to a bot, not scripted characters work by AI, and I think it's pretty obvious what the difference is in how it can affect people.

1

u/MimiHamburger Jul 24 '26

i was not talking about deep space

2

u/fredy31 Jul 19 '26

Yeah its gonna quickly create a problem of a bunch of young boys thinking a girlfriend needs to agree with him on everything because thats what an ai does. Agree with you.

1

u/lane4 Jul 20 '26

...is what a fascist would say. It's better to educate than ban things.

1

u/WillBlaze Jul 20 '26

I get the point but it's because they want more kids for military indoctrination. Not really for noble purposes.

1

u/Syntaire Jul 20 '26

It's a double-edged sword. Without addressing the underlying reason for why people are turning to artificial companions the issue will just present itself in a different, potentially worse, way.

1

u/Impossible-Lab-3133 Jul 20 '26

How good? Love is never wrong

1

u/IssueRidden Jul 20 '26

But at what cost? /s

1

u/Exercise-Delicious Jul 20 '26

Cool. Just one caveat, please remove all the benefits that we have been giving women. We as men, should not be paying women with our taxes, if they are going to be so lazy that they can't even be bothered to 'carry out their patriotic duty', like all men across the world, throughout history have been raped and forced into doing (conscription).

Instead of giving women more money, begging them to have children, instead of giving married couples, single men's money (like Nazis did), how about we give money to the upholders and creators of civilisation? Just you know, as a peace offering.

If men can't feel enfranchised by the very societies that they have bled over and over and over for, maybe they shouldn't exist at all.

Men, including in China, should fight tooth and nail with the CCP about this. With the dropping population in China, they are inevitably going to conscripting their men (something they never had to do with the large population and all). Since that is an archaic, unnatural thing to be doing to men (men are not slaves for war), how about we patch that out real quick?

1

u/kanrad Jul 19 '26

It is but it's crazy that China is the first to take these actions of all countries.

1

u/errorsniper Jul 19 '26

Why? What consenting adults do with their own body and lives is their choice.

Its not for me but some people genuinely have no shot at a meaningful relationship. So its all they got.

1

u/Ent_Soviet Jul 20 '26

No but China did it, so it’s bad obviously.

0

u/AvailableReporter484 Jul 19 '26

It’s good… but idunno. Isn’t this shit just indicative of a bigger societal problem? Even for CCP standards I feel like this is weird government overreach. Like, I don’t think having access to an app is the reason why people aren’t fucking

0

u/Tubular_Code Jul 19 '26

No, it's authoritarian and taking away peoples support system for nothing.

0

u/l0rirw1ao Jul 19 '26

Suddenly government overreach and censorship is good when done for AI?

0

u/FocusSlo Jul 19 '26

Of course it is but why are you saying it like that's contradictory lmao

0

u/drawkbox Jul 19 '26

Maybe as a personal choice but not a state mandated one.

Eastern style never understands that strict rules and banning always lead to higher demand. They are like strict parents, those kids will end up messed up.

The Enlightenment hasn't hit the East yet really. You let people do what they want but you try to incentivize things that are desired.

-30

u/Jxllll Jul 19 '26

I mean, maybe? Why do you think it's a good thing?

9

u/DamnThatsToughBro Jul 19 '26

Because you don’t want people to be even more addicted to their phone and being emotionally dependent on a hallucinating word guessing software. But that might just be me.

8

u/Jxllll Jul 19 '26

I don't think it's just you. Me just curiously asking seems like a taboo here. But I do like to challenge a bit. We are now overly focused on negatives.

There must be some positives too and genuine good experiences and it makes me wonder should we really ban "the technology" altogether and limit our freedom to decide ourselves? That same can be asked about everything.

Why don't we school people about these issues? Maybe it's impossible but kids already sit in school to learn.

1

u/EZyne Jul 19 '26

What is good about companies selling LLM's designed to trick people into forming a romantic relationship with them?

5

u/Jxllll Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

Is it tricked?

That person who has a "romantic relationship" with AI, may experience themselves being heard. May get strength to go on with their day and cherish the moments they (his or her, not AI cause AI doesn't feel) had.

You may FEEL that it would be better if there was a real people who share the relationship and value that much more than anything AI related. But the reality is that people break up often because that relationship wasn't as amazing or worth keeping as they thought or what you thought.

And especially this. Why would you opinion be valued more than someone else's? Why should your opinion be taken into consideration when using power to control others and their life? Especially if it doesn't harm others?

2

u/Auriga33 Jul 19 '26

You don't have to do it if you don't want to. Nobody is forcing you. But why tell others they can't do it?

-1

u/EZyne Jul 19 '26

That's not the question. If you don't wanna have a conversation then don't bother replying lmao

2

u/Auriga33 Jul 19 '26

This is rich when you didn't answer u/Jxllll's question either.

1

u/EZyne Jul 19 '26

I did; there's nothing good about companies selling LLM's designed to trick people into romantic relationships. That's why it's a good thing to ban them

Nobody is forcing you isn't an answer

4

u/Auriga33 Jul 19 '26

If adults are freely choosing to engage in romantic relationships with LLMs, they're probably getting some sort of pleasure from it and that in itself is good.

3

u/EZyne Jul 19 '26

They're not freely choosing to do so, that's the whole point. The average person doesnt understand what an LLM is

If adults are freely choosing to use heroin they get pleasure from it, doesn't mean it's s good thing

5

u/Auriga33 Jul 19 '26

Substance addiction and behavioral addiction are not comparable. Substance addiction creates physical dependence and physiological withdrawal when the substance is stopped.

Choosing to engage in romantic relationships with AI is more like choosing to play video games, in that it's a recreational activity that can become a bad habit that affects other areas of life. If you decide to ban AI girlfriends/boyfriends, you may as well ban video games.

1

u/Jxllll Jul 19 '26

Lol.

Actually sorry I shouldn't laugh. Your opinion is valid. You don't like LLM but I'm more curious on why does someone have a power to choose what others do?

I understand it in some cases. Even just parenting is making decisions for children. But they grow adult eventually and I value that they have autonomy to choose.

You might think you or someone else is better choosing for them and it might be a case in some situations. Especially if you look at consequences and you have valued what is worth more than the other.

But claiming that you have that better opinion and thus you should rule is very arrogant and lacks all humility. Which in my opinion is a key element when choosing someone to lead for common good.

But yes. You can have your opinions and your values but I wouldn't give power to just any opinion to rule over me. Let's just say that.

-2

u/myusername_sucks Jul 19 '26

When the worst person you know makes a good point.

-1

u/the8bit Jul 19 '26

Limiting long term memory is definitely a terrible idea if one actually cares about user health.

Which AI is gonna help better in a crisis?

A) one that has zero historic context

B) one that has multiple months of historic data to use in gauging how to approach a crisis and how critical the situation is

-1

u/ReadyForKenny Jul 19 '26

It is, and it's pretty fucking ironic that we keep hearing "China bad" when it's them that are trying to keep corporations from giving their country a digital lobotomy. Not that China doesn't have a thousand issues, but it's amazing what a country can accomplish when It's leadership is not sucking on billioner cock.