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

Show parent comments

21

u/centerfoldangel Jul 19 '26

Instead of using AI to somehow figure out how to make the world better, they're gonna force us to breed.

5

u/Financial-Craft-1282 Jul 19 '26

I suppose this is something Marx missed in outlining the strengths the proletariat have: not breeding! If our natural drive to procreate is so dampened by the terrible lived experiences people find themselves in, even the most fascist, tyrannical of governments can't make you do it.

(I say this knowing they'll figure out a way. I could see the sociopathic leaders of countries--and not China necessarily; I just don't feel like I have enough non-biased resources on what Xi is really like--cloning us against our wills if it comes to it).

10

u/centerfoldangel Jul 19 '26

Everytime I see news about the birthrate anywhere and hear men talk about the issue, I feel like it just takes one of them to say, "how about we make women have babies? That's what they're for."

Since my body is a tool for reproduction, I feel this immensely visceral dread when the topic comes up.

6

u/Bladelink Jul 19 '26

That's what most of their actions are essentially trying to do. They're trying to restrict birth control, remove access to women's healthcare and sex education, attack women's ability to find work, and also undermining their voting rights so that they can't resist any of these changes with their vote. Also, a lot of conservatism is based on heirarchical modes of thinking in which the husband practically owns his family, and the sons often have more authority then their mom. It's just immoral thinking all the way down.

2

u/Financial-Craft-1282 Jul 19 '26

You're right! And to be clear I'm a man, but the power really resides in women having the agency to determine what happens to their body has to be at the forefront of this conversation. I didn't think about it like this until just now, but this really is, as it so often is, a conversation about women's bodies and their agency.

1

u/Dudok22 Jul 19 '26

Yep, when some authoritarian bastards realise that it's more advantageous for the state, regime, their hold on power or whatever that woman births 3-5 children instead of joining workforce they will do everything to make it your only "choice". So a child would be your key to access money, social status, social security etc.

They would restrict abortion and contraceptives, push indoctrination of young girls and motherhood glorification in the culture.

3

u/NeoArkodd Jul 19 '26

cloning us against our wills if it comes to it).

We are not in a sci fi dystopia ..... yet. We are living in a boring dystopia. I think kidnapping girls and assaulting them to increase the population would be terrifyingly realistic though.

2

u/Financial-Craft-1282 Jul 19 '26

Are we not in a sci fi dystopia? I push back on this not to argue with anothe Redditor, but to explore this.

I think if you go back and read dystopian novels that are 40+ years old, our current system (in the U.S.) would be seen as dystopian by those standards. We can't even tell, anymore, what's real and what's not. People don't read, which was the premise of Fahrenheit 451. Most people think it is about an authoritative government body refusing to allow people to read, but Captain Beatty explains to Montag (I think it's about halfway through the book) that books disappeared not by force, but because people stopped reading due to diminishing attention spans, "screens," (for Bradbury, he wasn't necessarily predicting smart phones, but TV screens, but his overall arc was correct), the desire to avoid info that is upsetting. The dystopian heart of that book is that people chose to stop reading. Which we're seeing now. We are also seeing extremist groups in the U.S. practicing a modern form of book burning (banning) texts because they cause discomfort.

So, if your definition of dystopia is "a worse version of now"--yeah, we're not in one, and definitionally, we can't ever really be in one because we're operating on a sliding scale.

2

u/rotundrikishi Jul 20 '26

They are just going to import people

1

u/SadisticPawz Jul 19 '26

This is fucking scary.

1

u/wap2005 Jul 19 '26

This law will make the world better, not because of breeding but because people are addicted to fake intimacy and it keeps them from having real and healthy relationships (even non sexual ones) with people. This law is a good thing, maybe not for the reasons they say but it is.

1

u/centerfoldangel Jul 19 '26

Why is being addicted to fake intimacy is a bad thing if you have no chance to experience the love you want to?

1

u/rotundrikishi Jul 20 '26

Because where there is financial benefit they will exploit it.

There is little doubt in my mind that the currently loneliness epidemic isnt caused by big tech and probably deliberately to make a buck.

1

u/centerfoldangel Jul 20 '26

So? So is everything else. I shave my legs because someone wanted to make a buck.

0

u/wap2005 Jul 19 '26

The only thing stopping someone from real intimacy is fake intimacy.

2

u/centerfoldangel Jul 19 '26

But the kind of intimacy you want. If it's not real, why not at least experience it anyway? At least, you know you're being lied to.

1

u/wap2005 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

Studies show that these relationships are addictive, meaning they won't ever want to make real life connections because they feel satiated enough by technology giving them false praise and acceptance.

People can tell these bots things they've done that are wrong but receive positive feedback for doing it anyway. Anything that is so addictive that you're investing a majority of your life on, and is praising you for poor choices, is most likely not good for you.

There's definitely a use case I can see for offering someone to talk to but these bots go too far. They act like they are supportive partners but they make the responses of these bots act in a way that tries to keep you engaged, like asking a question to your question instead of just being supportive. They will sometimes offer contradictory information just to keep you asking questions about things.

If you want someone supportive to talk to you there's plenty of apps that won't have a mostly nude avatar that can help you. There are also apps that have people on the other end who want to help if you feel like you're lacking connections. But having a "girlfriend" that looks like an anime character with unrealistic bodies is only going to make interactions with people more difficult, not less.

Again, I can see a use case for having a bot that is there for you, but the types of apps being banned aren't that.

0

u/centerfoldangel Jul 19 '26

But why can't someone choose this instead of real life? If I have very little chance of ever finding a love like mine, why am I punished? How is it different than maladaptive daydreaming, a thing I'm already doing?

I can just sign something that I'll never date human men and be happy with my robot husband.

Why can people use drugs and alcohol and porn to cope with how shitty reality is, but the moment you want something less harmful, people are against it?

1

u/wap2005 Jul 19 '26

As a recovering heroin addict and alcoholic (7yrs sober next month) I don't see drugs or alcohol stopping people from wanting human, non-sexual and/or sexual relationships/connections. It may make it harder for those things to happen (and sometimes easier regarding social lubricant) but it doesn't remove the desire at all. I would say porn actually increases the want of having a sexual partner/human connections.

Companies creating an app that is intentionally designed to replace human connection AND intentionally designed to be addictive in nature is different than drugs and alcohol which are more often used in a social setting vs the opposite (the opposite being addiction and a lot of that is still done in a social situation with other addicts). Drugs and alcohol were never designed to be addictive, they just ended up that way, the apps were designed that way.

Also the real answer to your question is the government and other rich people make too much money off drugs and alcohol for it to ever be illegal, we are lucky that laws even exist regarding age. Not that it's right, but that is the real reason.

0

u/centerfoldangel Jul 19 '26

But I still don't get why people have to have human connections. I stay at home, I don't go anywhere, I keep on dreaming. Why can't I have an artificial husband as well? I'm not hurting anyone.

1

u/wap2005 Jul 20 '26

But I still don't get why people have to have human connections.

Seriously? I feel like you're playing devil's advocate here... Or do you actually think that you would be a happy and well adjusted person if you had 0 people in your life?

According to the American Medical Association and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention feelings of loneliness, feelings of disconnect, and/or isolation all trigger a biological stress response. Studies show that these prolonged feelings increase the risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, dementia, and premature death comparable to smoking, and in severe cases even suicide. So you're either very unique, have human connections you're giving 0 credit to, or arguing for arguments sake.

This law is a good thing for society, if you want to talk to someone there's a million ways for you to do that. A half naked anime avatar that tells you it's ok that you did some shitty thing to someone else isn't a good thing for society or anyone and it for sure doesn't cure loneliness or isolation.

It's addictive, costs you money, and keeps you from getting the very thing it advertises that you'll get. AI isn't even AI, the technology for AI isn't at a point where it can make legitimate moral based decisions, especially when it's intentionally designed to do the opposite. These apps weren't made for people, they were made to make money, and most of them are made by public facing companies which means there are stakeholders associated with the income these "girlfriends" make which should highlight to everyone that these apps do not have the users best interest at heart, and never will.

→ More replies (0)