show more
Ymir
Clipped
Patatitta
anyways I would not
Karmine

abraker wrote:

If it can carry a convo and sustain a relationship better than most matches on dating apps, why not?
Eliza can do that.

octovore_shobon wrote:

funny how yall talk about anime girl-like androids before anything else
Brainrot. Literally can't see themselves with a real woman.
Topic Starter
octovore_shobon
Brainrot. Literally can't see themselves with a real woman.
thats what i thought, like, women exist and anime girls are just an eastern cartoony representation of women
Behrauder

octovore_shobon wrote:

Brainrot. Literally can't see themselves with a real woman.
thats what i thought, like, women exist and anime girls are just an eastern cartoony representation of women
Real life people are not perfect. Neither in personality nor in appearance.

This is the main difference.
Topic Starter
octovore_shobon

Behrauder wrote:

octovore_shobon wrote:

Brainrot. Literally can't see themselves with a real woman.
thats what i thought, like, women exist and anime girls are just an eastern cartoony representation of women
Real life people are not perfect. Neither in personality nor in appearance.

This is the main difference.
nothing is perfect in real life, their problem if they can't handle that
xch00F

Behrauder wrote:

octovore_shobon wrote:

Brainrot. Literally can't see themselves with a real woman.
thats what i thought, like, women exist and anime girls are just an eastern cartoony representation of women
Real life people are not perfect. Neither in personality nor in appearance.

This is the main difference.
embarassing post as fuck
Ymir
Welcome to the wonderful world of Brazilian OT users!
xch00F
nah that's not a brazilian thing it's an anime avatar thing
Aireunaeus
How did my post get removed lol

Anyways no

Tho i can see that ppl might really date robots due to the rise and improvement of AI communication
niat0004
No - among other things, for security reasons.

niat0004 wrote:

In general, I think you would be better off aiming for human romantic partners, though AI robotics do have other creative use cases.

Tateshina Eve wrote:

Would this count?
I thought of this instead.
Behrauder

xch00F wrote:

Behrauder wrote:

octovore_shobon wrote:

Brainrot. Literally can't see themselves with a real woman.
thats what i thought, like, women exist and anime girls are just an eastern cartoony representation of women
Real life people are not perfect. Neither in personality nor in appearance.

This is the main difference.
embarassing post as fuck
igorsprite
no, there are certain things that robots can't even get close to
BluePyTheWDeer_
no
Serraionga

octovore_shobon wrote:

thats what i thought, like, women exist [...]
𝙴𝚛𝚖, 𝚍𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚐𝚑? 𝙸 𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚗𝚔 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝'𝚜 𝚓𝚞𝚜𝚝 𝚢𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚘𝚙𝚒𝚗𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚊𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐.
𝙱𝚎 𝚜𝚞𝚛𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚝𝚘 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚏𝚞𝚜𝚎 𝚢𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝚏𝚎𝚎𝚕𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚜 𝚟𝚜 𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚞𝚊𝚕 𝚏𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚜 𝚗𝚎𝚡𝚝 𝚝𝚒𝚖𝚎! ; )
Topic Starter
octovore_shobon

Serraionga wrote:

basement dweller
ShinRun
Topic Starter
octovore_shobon
r obot
abraker

Karmine wrote:

abraker wrote:

If it can carry a convo and sustain a relationship better than most matches on dating apps, why not?
Eliza can do that.
Eliza couldn't carry on a sentence like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried
Karmine

abraker wrote:

Karmine wrote:

abraker wrote:

If it can carry a convo and sustain a relationship better than most matches on dating apps, why not?
Eliza can do that.
Eliza couldn't carry on a sentence like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried
You set the bar at "matches on dating apps" which is much lower than GPT from what I've seen.
MistressRemilia

abraker wrote:

Karmine wrote:

abraker wrote:

If it can carry a convo and sustain a relationship better than most matches on dating apps, why not?
Eliza can do that.
Eliza couldn't carry on a sentence like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried
I dunno, I think `M-x doctor` mode in Emacs is a descendant of Eliza, if I'm not mistaken, and it can kinda sorta carry on a conversation.

abraker

MistressRemilia wrote:

abraker wrote:

Karmine wrote:

abraker wrote:

If it can carry a convo and sustain a relationship better than most matches on dating apps, why not?
Eliza can do that.
Eliza couldn't carry on a sentence like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried
I dunno, I think `M-x doctor` mode in Emacs is a descendant of Eliza, if I'm not mistaken, and it can kinda sorta carry on a conversation.

Well only one way to find out if it's date material. Ask it if it would still chat with you if you were a worm.


Obviously chat GPT has some game but is pretty eh
llama is going places but much of a blabbermouth
Noreu
im just gonna send this and leave



goodbye
[[[[[[
ABSOLUTELY

IF YOU EVER SAW ME SAY NO TO ROBOTXXXXING MY IDENTITY HAS BEEN STOLEN
abraker

Noreu wrote:

im just gonna send this and leave



goodbye
Kobold84

abraker wrote:

MistressRemilia wrote:

abraker wrote:

Karmine wrote:

abraker wrote:

If it can carry a convo and sustain a relationship better than most matches on dating apps, why not?
Eliza can do that.
Eliza couldn't carry on a sentence like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried like chat gpt even if she tried
I dunno, I think `M-x doctor` mode in Emacs is a descendant of Eliza, if I'm not mistaken, and it can kinda sorta carry on a conversation.

Well only one way to find out if it's date material. Ask it if it would still chat with you if you were a worm.


Obviously chat GPT has some game but is pretty eh
llama is going places but much of a blabbermouth
I really like the llama response.
I wonder how Llama405B would've handled this scenario.
Kaaruumii

Noreu wrote:

im just gonna send this and leave



goodbye
jenny is just the westernized version of hatsune miku
- Marco -

Kaaruumii wrote:

Noreu wrote:

im just gonna send this and leave



goodbye
jenny is just the westernized version of hatsune miku
DID YOU JUST SAY
Winnyace
If I become that desparate, yes.
Corne2Plum3
Still no
great_elmo

Noreu wrote:

im just gonna send this and leave



goodbye
I'm still traumatized by THAT video.
That is all I will say.

But I'm already desperate enough so yes.
Topic Starter
octovore_shobon

great_elmo wrote:

I'm still traumatized by THAT video.
That is all I will say.

But I'm already desperate enough so yes.
cmon jenny is hot
great_elmo

octovore_shobon wrote:

great_elmo wrote:

I'm still traumatized by THAT video.
That is all I will say.

But I'm already desperate enough so yes.
cmon jenny is hot
Ik she is but I'm referring to THAT one video of her.
Noreu

octovore_shobon wrote:

great_elmo wrote:

I'm still traumatized by THAT video.
That is all I will say.

But I'm already desperate enough so yes.
cmon jenny is hot
woule fuck jenny with engine oil
Achromalia
observation #1: notably but mundanely in these communities, a thread describing romantic desire [#1] is very easily translated to sexual desire and what people would do to people or things

observation #2: somehow that would be treated by me as if it mattered in cultural/social contexts like these :'p

observation #3: it is easily imagined that making these observations could single me out... [#2]

observation #4: that is my own fault, i don't know what i intend to be negotiating if i'm going to submit to my own impulses anyway through commenting on something like this;;

...

addendum [#1]: i forget that "dating" might not necessarily imply any kind of attraction/desire, and more of a practice defined loosely by certain interpersonal contexts

addendum [#2]: why am i talking like this anyway? isn't this commentary just kind of revealing of me? am i purposefully trying to make myself embarrassingly visible on a public forum? why is this so natural/intuitive to me? among other questions, including speculation about things people perceive of others and the ways they interpret and react to them. cue the opportunity for others' speculative/scrutinizing commentary (inclusive of "why do you care") or maybe the lack thereof
ShinRun
Smash next question
Polyspora

roufou wrote:

imagine how awkward an OT dating show would be
fuck thats an awesome idea but everyone here is a toddler so its over already
Achromalia
idk how awkward it would be when the answer is always "...i don't know you" or "i'm not interested in seeing anyone" or "so when do we eat" or "anyway i just want to listen to people talk" or a random "philosophical" monologue or a random "philosophical" dialogue

speaking for myself, i suppose
ShinRun
“Yo wanna fuck”
“Bet”
“Fr fr”
Polyspora

Achromalia wrote:

idk how awkward it would be when the answer is always "...i don't know you" or "i'm not interested in seeing anyone" or "so when do we eat" or "anyway i just want to listen to people talk" or a random "philosophical" monologue or a random "philosophical" dialogue

speaking for myself, i suppose
its an OT event idea.

dont overthink it
z0z

ShinRun wrote:

“Yo wanna fuck”
“Bet”
“Fr fr”
i feel like that's not gonna happen often
Achromalia

Polyspora wrote:

Achromalia wrote:

idk how awkward it would be when the answer is always "...i don't know you" or "i'm not interested in seeing anyone" or "so when do we eat" or "anyway i just want to listen to people talk" or a random "philosophical" monologue or a random "philosophical" dialogue

speaking for myself, i suppose
its an OT event idea.

dont overthink it
it is! that was me not overthinking it, it was a very simple answer to give without taking much thought at all :> which was sort of what i meant to illustrate to begin with, in that it would not be that awkward because there is very little for me to care for being awkward about

unless you mean something else, but i'm not really sure what value that would have as a critique
Espionage724
Unless you make the robot all parts and code, you'd just be dating someone else's rulebook.
- Marco -

Espionage724 wrote:

Unless you make the robot all parts and code, you'd just be dating someone else's rulebook.
would
Espionage724

- Marco - wrote:

Espionage724 wrote:

Unless you make the robot all parts and code, you'd just be dating someone else's rulebook.
would
BDSM sounds like less steps :p
MistressRemilia

Espionage724 wrote:

- Marco - wrote:

Espionage724 wrote:

Unless you make the robot all parts and code, you'd just be dating someone else's rulebook.
would
BDSM sounds like less steps :p
What if it comes factory-coded for this?
Espionage724

MistressRemilia wrote:

Espionage724 wrote:

- Marco - wrote:

Espionage724 wrote:

Unless you make the robot all parts and code, you'd just be dating someone else's rulebook.
would
BDSM sounds like less steps :p
What if it comes factory-coded for this?
Why use someone else's rulebook on rust instead of entertaining the person who wrote it? They might have more creativity than they coded :p
Achromalia

Espionage724 wrote:

MistressRemilia wrote:

Espionage724 wrote:

Unless you make the robot all parts and code, you'd just be dating someone else's rulebook.

- Marco - wrote:

would

Espionage724 wrote:

BDSM sounds like less steps :p

What if it comes factory-coded for this?
Why use someone else's rulebook on rust instead of entertaining the person who wrote it? They might have more creativity than they coded :p
we could just as easily assume a counterpoint in that something executed by a robot may just as easily be more effective in the implementation of that creativity than the writer of its code, if we're at such a point where dating someone's rulebook so-to-speak is a viable option :o

or maybe the intention was to demonstrate that this doesn't exist at this capacity beyond the user's own creativity/imagination? unsure... but then again, i imagine this is not really based on practical implementation so much as the hypothetical premise where you could reasonably expect to be satisfied with dating a robot, or something similar

...why am i adding to a conversation i don't care about...? am i really that bored? i almost posted an essay in response to another one of your comments elsewhere in off-topic on the plane-crash rarity thing and whatever its representation in media would/wouldn't necessarily signal, before erasing it and realizing how much i was writing for something other people likely wouldn't invest any thought into :sob:
Espionage724

Achromalia wrote:

Espionage724 wrote:

MistressRemilia wrote:

Espionage724 wrote:

Unless you make the robot all parts and code, you'd just be dating someone else's rulebook.

- Marco - wrote:

would

Espionage724 wrote:

BDSM sounds like less steps :p

What if it comes factory-coded for this?
Why use someone else's rulebook on rust instead of entertaining the person who wrote it? They might have more creativity than they coded :p
we could just as easily assume a counterpoint in that something executed by a robot may just as easily be more effective in the implementation of that creativity than the writer of its code, if we're at such a point where dating someone's rulebook so-to-speak is a viable option :o

or maybe the intention was to demonstrate that this doesn't exist at this capacity beyond the user's own creativity/imagination? unsure... but then again, i imagine this is not really based on practical implementation so much as the hypothetical premise where you could reasonably expect to be satisfied with dating a robot, or something similar
If I was considering dating a robot, it'd be way cooler to DIY the whole ordeal :p If I was at that kind of point, I probably wouldn't have another person factored in. And with the idea that I can do stuff better than other people, a robot covers a lot more chances to show it off while being practical for the intended uses :p Who knows what I want more than myself?

Buying a robot with someone else's AI as the brain sounds odd, and likely more limited than the person who coded the behavior. And if it's internet-connected, my goodness that's a whole different territory of weird having mics and cams hooked up to logistics for something you're dating.

Achromalia wrote:

...why am i adding to a conversation i don't care about...? am i really that bored? i almost posted an essay in response to another one of your comments elsewhere in off-topic on the plane-crash rarity thing and whatever its representation in media would/wouldn't necessarily signal, before erasing it and realizing how much i was writing for something other people likely wouldn't invest any thought into :sob:
Eh I like posting quips every now and then, but usually not too seriously; and also like reading responses to em :p (I was definitely joking about that TV series length being equal to anything statistical but it was a convenient point)
Achromalia

Espionage724 wrote:

Achromalia wrote:

Espionage724 wrote:

Why use someone else's rulebook on rust instead of entertaining the person who wrote it? They might have more creativity than they coded :p
we could just as easily assume a counterpoint,
in that something executed by a robot may just as easily be more effective in the implementation of that creativity than the writer of its code, if we're at such a point where dating someone's rulebook so-to-speak is a viable option :o

or maybe the intention was to demonstrate that this doesn't exist at this capacity beyond the user's own creativity/imagination? unsure... but then again, i imagine this is not really based on practical implementation so much as the hypothetical premise where you could reasonably expect to be satisfied with dating a robot, or something similar
If I was considering dating a robot, it'd be way cooler to DIY the whole ordeal :p If I was at that kind of point, I probably wouldn't have another person factored in. And with the idea that I can do stuff better than other people, a robot covers a lot more chances to show it off while being practical for the intended uses :p Who knows what I want more than myself?

Buying a robot with someone else's AI as the brain sounds odd, and likely more limited than the person who coded the behavior. And if it's internet-connected, my goodness that's a whole different territory of weird having mics and cams hooked up to logistics for something you're dating.
understandable :) i think i'm losing the plot now and i'm unsure whether the contexts expanded even more than what i had been accounting for with creativity/satisfaction in direct interactions with either creation or creator

i wouldn't really have anything to speak on here in terms of its strangeness or applicability bc i haven't thought that far past the point of "the other human who made the robot you date may not be that effective of a dating partner let alone a sexual partner, so the creativity is only really best found through whatever agent that enacts it best, and not that many humans are always so capable at executing (directly, as themselves) something that they may only understand through knowledge/imagination rather than have skill in as a practice". or maybe i'm contradicting myself and spoke to two separate things as a result of including the second paragraph? i probably hoped to tie that with the first, but i may have forgotten some elements of what i likely could have meant there

Espionage724 wrote:

Achromalia wrote:

...why am i adding to a conversation i don't care about...? am i really that bored?
i almost posted an essay in response to another one of your comments elsewhere in off-topic on the plane-crash rarity thing and whatever its representation in media would/wouldn't necessarily signal, before erasing it and realizing how much i was writing for something other people likely wouldn't invest any thought into :sob:
Eh I like posting quips every now and then, but usually not too seriously; and also like reading responses to em :p (I was definitely joking about that TV series length being equal to anything statistical but it was a convenient point)
mm, from what i remember, i think my premise was going to be that even as a point of convenience, there may not really necessarily be any reliable equivalence found between the rarity of an event with its publicity in entertainment, since any reported extent of an event's existence can be examined by a given creator and used as a subject to represent when creating [art/music/films], reaching wider audiences regardless of an event's conventional significance or rarity. both extremely [trivial/mundane/realistic/common] and extremely [significant/fantastical/fictional/rare] events can be used as subjects for artistic representation regardless of these relationships so long as they can be conceived or narrativized or given significance by that creator, and audiences will connect with each work differently in ways that may also add/enhance that sense of significance independently from the actual rarity/significance of the event or subject itself

at the time, i wrote something like "idk if you're just making an observation to substantiate this point or if you're demonstrating an ironic contradiction to refute it, but this brought a thought to mind that seemed relevant"... but in this case, as a convenient simplification of a point without necessitating statistics to represent its salience/validity, it read to me like something to at least leave a counterpoint for because it could read like a logical fallacy of something loosely akin to "people talk about it, it's everywhere in the news, so it is [necessarily rare] / [necessarily common] / [necessarily true or untrue]"
Jun Maeda
This topic is crazy actually
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

/