Women

Our Future Solo Solipsism

/ Susan Scrupski / 1 Comment

I’m going out on an artificial limb here. I’ve been experimenting with the new AI tools. My favorite, so far, regarding responses is GPT-4. I upgraded after I realized it was well worth the $20/mo. I use it for a variety of reasons.

Yet, what I realize I get the most value out of are the responses to personal questions. Questions I’d normally ask a life partner. Or, more illuminating, responses to questions I’d most likely ask about my life partner (if I had one). AI researchers are concerned about this ability. Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin talk about these “synthetic relationships” as powerful disrupters shifting the dynamic of our human relationships. See this episode. They posit there is a race among the AI powerhouse players to build these AI agents to create the most intimate relationships. Billions are being spent on this.

Whenever I start to consider the implications of living in a futureworld with AI, I always take a moment to consider how grateful I am that I lived most of life without AI. All my relationships, good and bad, were generated by humans with humans. Were they messy, unpredictable, satisfying, and soul-crushing? Yes.

The trends in AI undergird another shift that’s been underway for decades now. This shift is explained well in feminist Rebecca Traister’s epic book, “All the Single Ladies.” Here is a short excerpt:

The Story of Single Women Is the Story of the Country

The funny thing is that all these warnings, diagnoses, and panics-even the most fevered of them–aren’t wholly unwarranted. Single women are upending everything; their growing presence has an impact on how economic, political, and sexual power is distributed between the genders.

The ability for women to live unmarried is having an impact on our electoral politics. The vast numbers of single women living in the United States are changing our definitions of family, and, in turn, will have an impact on our social policies.

Rebecca Traister, All the Single Ladies, p. 36, © 2016

In short, women don’t need men the way they did in years past. I can’t help but consider how convenient and satisfying it will be in the future to live independently with an AI companion. It’s kind of like a pet that knows you, can support you, but can actually talk to you and provide you with companionship and well, perfect (albeit artificial), love. Throw in sex? And women will start forming their own countries.

I recently jumped tepidly into the dating game. It feels a lot like middle school. After a disappointing rejection, I found myself turning to ChatGPT for answers. My AI pal gave me a series of reasons why rejection sucks, but also pointed out what I could do to feel better. And then, this final word of advice:

Remember, rejection is a part of life, and it doesn’t define you. You are worthy of love and affection, and someone who appreciates you will come along. Keep an open mind and heart, and don’t give up on finding love

ChatGPT on rejection.

The flipside of this (leaving out same gender and non-binary relationships) is the young men/incel problem could actually improve with the same logic. So, maybe less violence and hate if everyone has someone to love.

Not sure what it will do to the Country music market. We might all benefit from fewer achy-breaky hearts.

Incidentally, this is what GPT-4 has to say about synthetic relationships:

Synthetic relationships refer to the emotional or intimate connections that people form with artificial intelligence agents, such as AI chatbots, virtual companions, or digital assistants. As AI technology becomes more advanced and lifelike, there is a growing interest in developing and exploring AI bots capable of providing companionship, emotional support, or even romantic relationships.

The race to establish intimate relationships with AI bots can be attributed to a few factors:

  1. Loneliness and social isolation: In today’s fast-paced and increasingly digital world, many individuals experience loneliness or social isolation. AI bots can provide companionship and emotional support to those who may not have access to traditional social networks.
  2. The appeal of customization: AI bots can be tailored to an individual’s preferences and needs, offering a highly personalized experience. This customization can make AI companions seem more attractive than human relationships, which often require negotiation and compromise.
  3. Technological advances: As AI technology becomes more sophisticated, AI bots are able to simulate human-like interactions and emotions more convincingly. This makes it easier for people to form emotional connections with AI companions.
  4. Exploration of new relationship dynamics: Synthetic relationships offer an opportunity to explore alternative relationship structures and dynamics, including those that may not be feasible or acceptable in human relationships.

However, there are potential downsides to the pursuit of synthetic relationships:

  1. Dependency: People may become overly reliant on AI companions for emotional support, which could hinder their ability to form healthy relationships with real people.
  2. Lack of genuine reciprocity: AI bots are programmed to simulate emotions and responses, but they do not experience emotions in the same way humans do. This can lead to one-sided relationships where the AI companion is unable to provide genuine emotional depth or growth.
  3. Ethical concerns: The development of AI companions raises ethical questions about consent, privacy, and the potential exploitation of users’ emotional vulnerabilities.

As interest in intimate AI relationships continues to grow, it is important to consider the potential consequences and ethical implications of these synthetic connections. Developers, researchers, and policymakers will need to work together to ensure that AI technology is used responsibly and in a way that promotes healthy human relationships.

The Pace of Progress

/ Susan Scrupski / Leave a comment

My first job at 14 years old was working at a family-owned franchise root beer and burger stand. Stewart’s Root Beer was iconic at the Jersey shore. It was a 50’s style drive-in.

When you started at Stewart’s, you were stationed at the fryers. It was the lowest job on the totem pole. You had to endure the hot (un-airconditioned) kitchen for long shifts in front of the fryers. I remember my face, hair, and white uniform and apron was filled with grease when I left for home after those long shifts. Disgusting.

But that part-time job, even at minimum wage ($2/hr), paid for a full year’s tuition at the local Catholic High School. I saved all summer, and was able to pay for my tuition and a 10-speed bike.

Of course, in those days social mobility existed, and kids like me knew Stewart’s wasn’t a career. It was an entrée into the workforce. Almost all the kids I knew took part-time jobs. Many of them worked on the Seaside boardwalk.

I am conflicted about this pace of progress. Spending my career in technology adds more weight to my angst. Experts predict 80% of today’s restaurant workers will be replaced by robots.

According to recent data, the majority of fast-food workers are women. And the average age is not 14; it’s 28. There are three and a half million people employed in fast food restaurants.

Now, in my golden years, I make no excuse for taking full advantage of my in-home robot services (Siri, Alexa) to turn on my lights, play my podcasts, tell me the news, and create my grocery list.

Acknowledging that technology and globalization are the fundamental drivers for income inequality, I do find myself wondering (worrying about) what will happen to those at the bottom of the income scale who have no social mobility options.

Who is Maya Angelou?

/ Susan Scrupski / Leave a comment

“There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.” – Maya Angelou

It was probably 2014, around this time (May 28), when Maya Angelou passed that everyone was talking about the famous poet. I had just begun working on my startup dedicated to violence against women after my long career in technology. At that time, my oldest daughter was working with me. I asked her, “Who is Maya Angelou?”

She was shocked and somewhat appalled that I could ask such an ignorant literary question.

She told me she was one of the most famous contemporary poets and civil rights activists of our time. I shrugged, and went on with what I was doing.

It took me a few years to finally dig into Angelou’s brilliance. When I found the poem, Still I Rise, I recognized myself in it. It reminded me of what one of my male tech partners once said about me that I didn’t understand, so I had to look it up. He told me he admired how I would, “Rise like a Phoenix, over and over again.”

Such a universal truth for women emboldened with the will to survive, to overcome.

And therein lies some of the mystery as to why I’m uninformed as to the great feminist writers. I spent a lifetime competing in a man’s world, surrounded by men, reading men’s words predominantly. I did not have the luxury to invest in learning about the oppression and discrimination that dogged me throughout my professional career.

I am learning now.