The same is true for what AI bots will offer. Even if they get much better, it will still be a facsimile of intimacy. It will never be as good as the real thing, even if it feels better and is less scary in the short term.
That said, it could be better than nothing. Buyers of GFE have varied reasons for doing so. Some of the men I talked to for my book did not seem capable of any other kind of intimate relationship — maybe they feared rejection or were too self-involved, or were just bad at connecting.
Others had partners and paid for GFE because they weren’t getting what they needed in their primary relationship. Still others just wanted to feel big and important to more than one person. And then there were customers who were mentally or physically disabled and craved intimacy that the dating market did not offer them.
Loading
The testimonials on Replika, if they can be believed, remind me of many brothel customers I interviewed. One Replika user actually says they have met a “companion for life.” Some have physical or emotional ailments that prevent them from dating in real life.
AI has the potential to make the market for fake intimacy much larger. People can subscribe for a fraction of the cost of a human sex worker, and with no stigma or legal consequences. That raises some hard questions, economically speaking: Does a market for false intimacy create negative externalities that require regulation? Or is it just sort of icky, and we should get over our moralistic tendencies?
Assuming all data is secure and private — granted, not always a safe assumption — the main concern is that the widespread availability of quasi-intimacy on demand will result in fewer people bothering to find a real relationship. The result will be greater loneliness, weaker social bonds and slower population growth — none of which is good for the economy or humanity. Again, to analogise to GFE: I know from my research that some people would stay single with or without it, while others eventually will get over their issues and find human companionship. The concern is that AI would make it too easy for people never to risk intimacy.
Another concern is that AI will destabilise existing relationships. Many Replika users appear to be using it to “supplement” their current partner. Speaking less as an economist than as a human being: That would seem to undermine the work it takes to establish and maintain real intimacy. Who can compete with a bot who has no needs of its own and cares only about making you happy? Alternatively, it could that mean fewer people seek out affairs with actual humans, and fewer marriages break up.
What’s undeniable is that the world has a serious loneliness problem, and AI bots may be able to help — either by being a companion for the chronically isolated or by helping people find real-life love (the founder of Bumble claims that bots can act as dating coaches).
Some sex workers proudly told me they had helped people learn how to have long-term relationships.
Like other kinds of AI, relationship bots will make life better for some people and worse for others. And as with other issues raised by AI, it’s too soon to say what kind of regulation may be necessary. In the meantime, the GFAIE is already here.
Loading
Allison Schrager is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics. A senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, she is author of “An Economist Walks Into a Brothel: And Other Unexpected Places to Understand Risk.”
Bloomberg
Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for the weekly What in the World newsletter here.