Washington U. Prof: AI Girlfriends Are Ruining a Generation of Men
(www.breitbart.com)
Comments (55)
sorted by:
It's an indictment of women more than anything else.
Imagine being so awful that the opposite gender would rather intimately interact with pixels on a screen than put the effort in to be around you.
Of course, that demands screeching about how awful the opposite gender is rather than any introspection.
Well they certainly aren't going to pin the blame on their most loyal voting base that's for sure. Nobody votes left and authoritarian like women do.
Well, you can just look at what countries like Korea are doing to see what's in store. Hint: their solution is more "gender equality".
The upside is more opportunity for grifts: get a bro, tell the guvmint he identifies as female and go hang with him sponsored by guvmint bucks
I’m sure governments would love to force a man to be be with some feminazi harpy, but that wouldn’t poll well with their LGBTQRSYZ+ allies.
Guys will put up with a lot for the puss and to avoid the stigma of not having a woman. All they really ask is that she not be horrible to be around all of the time. That’s STILL asking too much these days.
The inevitable consequences of womens' rights.
All I know is my GPU isn't going to get mad at me and try to ruin my life over politics.
Your GPU isn't going to get mad at you and try to ruin your life over politics yet.
It's coming, as soon as Intel can figure out how to make it happen.
Their GPUs will absolutely try to, obviously. I'd be surprised if tranny terrorists weren't already working on a way to use GPT + online search capabilities to automatically doxx people and build dossiers.
Nobody called BS on the timeline yet? AI didn't explode until this year, how could it be causing a generational plague of loneliness that started a decade ago?
I knew guys filling the foreveralone hole in their lives with Cleverbot all the way back in 2008. Its not exactly knew, but that was probably less than 10000 across the entire planet.
Its almost certain they are just using the word AI as clickbait, given its viral popularity, to talk about "all non-human social interactions." So just crying about waifus again.
Boy, I wonder if this Professor is trying to make some sort of claim for immigration...
How dare we give this men any outlet other then the one we choose for them.
Clearly the professor is not aware that it is not MEN who are choosing to have fewer children lol.
See this? It's not a problem that the men are lonely in the first place. It's only a problem that they stay lonely.
"Accept the post wall woman, who had hundred of dicks in her".
Breitbart is kyked
This is nonsense. "Ruining a generation" like everyone on the planet is out there getting an AI girlfriend. It's a niche pornography variant. At best this is going to ruin a couple of ethot's only fans dreams.
One of the saddest things about this is that if you've ever interacted with a LLaMA, you'll have gotten about as much from that interaction as you would most women on a given social media platform.
I wholeheartedly agree with this headline. However one must realize that this didn't happen with a multitude of reasons that women are partially to blame (porn, attacks on the family and men's masculinity, government, rule 16 stuff)
Hopefully the ai chicks will take enough money away from the E-thots online to make them get a real job
Oh god. The e-thots will lobby for democrats to support them and kill AI
A bit early for such claims, don't you think?
Oh of course it's not. It's never too early to pointlessly politicize something to further your agenda.
You'll also note how she never bothers to even mention other artificial and fake romantic outlets, both new and old.
Cause women are already ruined?
No, lack of Adultery laws ruined multiple generations of women. Now the men finally have an answer to it.
If they ever develop a technology that flawlessly reproduces the feeling of having sex with a real woman, consider marriage and relationships dead.
If anything, the attraction of AI girlfriends is a form of commentary on how truly awful real women behave.
They should be happy less people, less CO2 but somehow when that also means less taxes they dont care anymore, what a coincidence.
Using my GPU to render porn on blender lol.
How much does this professor think fucking 9 year olds are contributing to GDP? Unless he's just lamenting the lost customer base for educational indoctrination and the medical mafia. At which point the economic loss isn't from not enough babies, it's from too many people trying to prey on children instead of adapting to do something useful.
Wow. 1000 people, Skynet take over imminent!
Do the people who want 'AI girlfriends' really the people you'd want to reproduce?
They could have been. I wonder what happened to make them so lonely, desperate and antisocial?
Lonely? Desperate? Sir you're misunderstanding the argument. Convenience and economics are driving factors here. If a rank and file woman made herself a more appealing candidate there would be no need for a bot
The elites want everyone to be wage cucks. They don't care if men are disillusioned with modern society, they want them to keep particupating in it no matter what
Edit: here
Most guys falling into that pit of inceldom and other "giving up" mindsets are just a few good opportunities from being normal and functional adults.
Society just offers no comeback mechanics for those who missed the growth train when it was easy to get. That's why they turn to easy escapism like Waifus or Modern Evangelists like Tate (or any other manosphere type guru). Because they have no idea how to otherwise fix the issue, and they really aren't incentivized to anyway.
It's become too easy to be a loser. That's the problem.
Yes, most people can't be natural born winners. That's how winning works, only a select few get to do it. Once too many start doing it, the bar raises and the numbers settle.
So you either build a society that has balancing mechanics to keep losers in the game until they manage to become successful after an intial rocky start, like we did for a few thousand years, or you simply shit on them for not being Perfect from birth and you end up with increasing social problems ("incels," trannies, mass shooters) that you keep acting like you aren't contributing to.
Somehow I feel like you will still deflect blame despite being part of group 2.
#winning is also an artificial, modern category. The number of "win" conditions used to be much more diverse but are dissolving in the flattened social media landscape where Miami onlyfans thots are the cutting edge and a man can't be "high value" unless he's buff, six figures, and swinging twelve inches off the deck of his yacht.
In a broad generalized sense sure. But in the dating game, its not. Because the win conditions are pretty easy to define and there are clearly defined losers. Being rich, being strong, being dangerous, being charismatic. They've always been a winning trait through all of history for acquiring women and if you went against a guy in a competition (directly or by comparison) you would be a loser to those looking.
The only difference now is that there were consequences for women who gambled and lost. Premarital sex, children out of wedlock, divorced, sluttery in general. All of them were basically a millstone to be labeled with. So while they (or really their dad picking for them) used to have to settle for "losers" who needed time and experience to become men worth something, now they can just keep chomping at the ankles of the top 20% of men forever until eventually they catch one by sheer luck.
Or waste all their youth and value until the clocking ticking causes a panic attack and they pick up a retarded simp.
Just to be clear I completely agree on your broad point about balancing mechanisms for men. A lot of great men were "losers" at some time in their lives.
My point is to add that there are, or were, many different win conditions, and this applies to dating too. You can be Casanova scoring multiple 9s or a schlubby dude that marries a nice mid girl and both of those are "winners." The schlub isn't necessarily a "loser" at any point and historically, many of them weren't. Only in the social media landscape, when he's pitted against Fabio, is he a loser.
I don't disagree with anything here. But, I think it was just as big an issue throughout history that "hot guy came through town, banged a bunch of wives" that made those men "losers" just as they would now. Heck, many famous pieces of writing and characters were just that as a concept.
The only difference now is that they don't need to wait for Fabio to maybe come through town, there are 15 Fabios standing in front of her (on the screen).
Everyone who exists is the product of an unending series of genetic winners. And things seemed to work just find before the 1960s. I regard having a decent life, marriage, kids as 'winning'. What happened?
Yeah, that, though I'd rather structure things in such a way that they don't start being losers at all.
You're mistaken, I can see the rottenness of society, and obviously it is the ultimate cause of mass shootings (as such mass shootings were comparatively rare in the past, if I'm not mistaken), but this does not absolve the mass shooters (not that you meant to absolve them).
That's patooie. Statistically speaking, most men AND women lose their virginity during the ages at which they are in (or would be in) highschool or college. The vast majority have lost virginity by 25, and after that, it's pretty stable.
I am not aware of data showing that "every girls over 18 has a double digit body count" or anything even close to that. Can you back that up?
For me, some years ago, I knew plenty of dudes (myself included) who couldn't get any during college...couldn't even go on dates...yet who managed to do just fine after graduating, getting a job, etc.
I do agree that things are much, much harder for males with lower levels of education and lower income earners, but still not as crazy as you say.
I think our society sucks, but you're wrong.
Some reading and data:
https://datepsychology.com/are-27-of-young-men-really-virgins-and-why/
https://www.livescience.com/13072-sex-stats-virgins-rise.html
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2017/201706_NSFG.htm
You shouldn't come swinging with "muh stats" when you immediately show your are willing to pull unsaid stuff out of your ass to justify your conclusion. That's literally bad stats 101.
Because he didn't say virginity once, nor did I. He said "experience" and "attention." I shouldn't need to explain how those two things are not equivalent, which then makes your entire point invalid. Double so when you pull out anecdotes that "prove" everyone else is wrong in their experience, just like how women have plenty anecdotes of their triple digit body friends being "happy and successful and their husband not caring" (a year before the 4th divorce).
This is important because simply "got laid once" isn't a high bar to clear, and is far, far from enough to simply make a guy flip from "incel loser" to "normal, stable man." You need a certain amount of experience, not just in sex but in courtship, romance, and the entire process, to develop a properly functioning brain. This amount differs per person but its basic human instinct to need it.
That's why in your argument , buying a hooker instantly fixes all incels instantly. As they cease to be virgins so boom problem solved. But we both know that isn't the case.
I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote. "Experience" and "attention." Well, if you're not a virgin, definitionally you've got some experience, and attention is more common than fucking. Since there's not really any great ways to quantify "attention," virginity is one of the better proxies that we have.
The most important part of my post was that it's horseshit that "every girls over 18 has a double digit body count." That's just laughable crybaby-feels-bad-for-himself bullshit.
I'll have to think about this. I don't think I've ever heard the claim before that if you don't date as an adolescent (brain still developing) your brain will not function properly. That doesn't seem right to me.
Nope, I never said anything remotely about that. I said that the vast majority of both women and men, by age 25, are no longer virgins and therefore have sexual experience. I don't make ANY causal link between sex and brain development or hookers "fixing" incels. I think you're betraying what strikes many people as "off" about the incel mindset--core to the incel belief is that if one gets fucked, you're fixed. If guys/girls would pay attention to you, you would be fixed. Etc. I don't believe that.
Then there is no further conversation to be had. My piece is said.
Absolutely. Thugs and low IQ subhumans already breed, why not introverted nerds?
Even with a real woman, most relationships are still artificial.