X

million dollar love child sarah morgan read online Relevant Information

(10 People Likes) If you were going to buy a real doll, who would you have the doll made to the likeness of?

bel Wilson with dark hair or Kate Pearson (B52’s) I love curvy women, bot million dollar love child sarah morgan read online ladies have class and sh

(48 People Likes) Why are people lonelier than ever even after having more devices that supposedly keep us connected? Is this related somehow?

that we’ve found and they help to basically reframe the question.
It does seem like a contradiction if you think about it intuitively, right? People have X level of social interaction without technology Y. Technology Y makes it even easier to coordinate social events, manage one’s social calendar, and talk to people. Surely X should be higher after people adopt technology Y, right?
But that’s not… exactly what happened. What has happened is… complicated.
One study found that social isolation hasn’t actually decreased since 1985 and that
“Mobile phone and Internet use, especially specific uses of social media, were found to have a positive relationship to network size and diversity”. Some studies have found positive correlations between social media use and social isolation (i.e. social media makes us more isolated); and other studies have found the opposite
. Some
research
has looked into how social media impacts our core social networks versus more disparate ones. I can’t find the specific studies that show the data, but it’s generally well-accepted that social media does seem to increase our core social relations while possibly making us less likely to see more distant acquaintances in person
. Social media can expose us to more caring and more demands on our attention, time and emotional resources
.
When you get such disparate results in sociology, that’s telling us something. It’s telling us that the problem is really complicated and we don’t have the right tools to ask the right questions. How do you measure social isolation? Is it based on how people feel, phenomenologically, or how they actually demonstrably are, based on their interactions with people? Is someone who has a few really close friendships more or less isolated than a celebrity with hundreds of hangers-on but no one they really feel they can be honest with? Is there a difference between being really involved and respected at work than at church, or in your family network versus your friends? And then there are really important theories that we may have overused that may have dictated how we thought about our questions and methodologies. For example, Mark Granovetter revolutionized sociology when he considered the Strength of Weak Ties, the power thatcomes from more distant friends and relationships who by virtue of being less closely connected to you also have a large amount of information you don’t have access to. But later research has pointed out that, sure, the people you don’t spend as much time with may know things you don’t, but you also don’t spend as much time with them, which means you’re less likely to get a bandwidth of useful information. In contrast, your close friends are exposing you to a ton of information, and while a lot of it is redundant to you, not all of it is.
So are we more or less isolated from technology? It’s complicated. But I do think we can reframe the question helpfully.
Step back for a second. Were people really all that deeply social before the era of the ubiquitous mobile phone?
You can just read Anarchy Revolution by Greg Graffin, or look at any of the punk songs and the music of people like Marilyn Manson and Rage Against the Machine, to see a sense of isolation and anger at that isolation in youths going back decades now. Putnam’s research that he presents in Bowling Alone suggests that Americans have been pretty well isolated for a long time. As an anarchist, I think that there’s been actually a pretty effective set of policies and corporate priorities that have dissolved a lot of traditional mechanisms for people to meaningfully coordinate (meaningful political parties and elections, meaningful unions) and that have generally promoted atomistic values that suggest we are best off when we go home and just watch TV. But even if you disagree with that assessment or think it may have been less deliberate than I might imagine, the evidence is still really clear: Americans are fairly isolated, and have been for decades.
What I think social media has done is just make that isolation more palpable and obvious.
For some, it has made us aware of the people we care about who have drifted away and makes us feel guilty for having let them go.
For others, it gives us tantalizing glimpses into the lives of people who seem to have better and more authentic friendships. (The fact that so much of that is itself posturing and public branding intended performatively doesn't really matter).
Indeed, in that vein, it has made some of us so worried in terms of how we look to others that we can never be “off”, never just home and alone.
For many of us, that isolation then leads us to destructive rabbit-holes, like multilevel marketing schemes and scams, cults, anti-vaccination movements and other fringe social movements, and other communities that turn a slight interest and a need for belonging into fanaticism.
But these problems preceded social media. They’ve just been brought to the forefront. And social media also helps solve some of the problems, too. The Arab Spring may not have been as promising as so many of us hoped, but it is still the case that long-standing corrupt and authoritarian regimes got challenged because social media made it possible for people to coordinate activity and share revolutionary ideas. Social media makes it easier for people at non-profits to talk to each other and work together, which can help with alleviating burnout and compassion fatigue.
Technologies make their own context that we adapt to. But they still only do that because we let them. And we can change that context. The only question is how to solve a problem humans have been grappling with since the very first people could ask questions beyond what was for dinner that night: how do we make societies so that a good spirit hangs over them, so that everyone has their well-being fulfilled? And we finally are gaining the tools to start really answe

(15 People Likes) Psychologists, is it healthy to be in a relationship with a silicone sex doll?

Our brains are organised to refer to the world of people (people self) and the world of things (thing self). Things can be controlled, people can not be. However there is slippage between the two so for example we can refer to objects and treat them as if they are people (naming them for example). And we can treat people like objects.
To try to have meet our sexual needs by use of a sex doll might fulfil one aspect of a relationship with a person, but not even in any meaningful way as it is not reciprocal. It is clear that if you pleasure yourself with your hand you are not having a relationship with your hand! So effectively it is not a relationship of any kind. And of course this logic applies to all the other elements of a relationship with another person. So I would

(93 People Likes) How do you know Candace Owens is an AI silicon doll/robot?

uses is “Chatscript”. This is open source, you can download it and make your own scripts for it. It’s user manual gives an example of how it works:
For instance you might add a rule if the human types in “I like spinach” you have a scripted conversation that continues:
s: ( I like spinach )
Are you a fan of the Popeye cartoons?
a: ( ~yes )
I used to watch him as a child. Did you lust after Olive Oyl?
b: ( ~no ) Me neither. She was too skinny.
b: ( ~yes ) You probably like skinny models.
a: ( ~no ) What cartoons do you watch?
b: ( none ) You lead a deprived life.
b: ( Mickey Mouse ) The Disney icon.
There ~yes means a sentence with affirmative words in it somewhere and ~no means there are negative words. This is an example from the Chatscript manual
.
How to build your first chatbot using ChatScript – Learn to code with free online courses, programming projects, and interview preparation for developer jobs.
There is no need to program in any understanding of what Popeye is, or what a cartoon is, or a film, skinny, or a model. There is nothing there that understands any of that.
It’s just text responding to key words in other text. With pre-scripted responses that may take up words from what you said to incorporate in its replies.
Sophia is designed with a humanoid face able to display appropriate emotions that can also be programmed in along with the scripted responses. It is also designed so it can pick up on emotional cues in the interviewees face and speech and respond with appropriate emotional responses.
Most of the work is in integrating that together.
In an early pilot study
they got Sophia to help human subjects to meditate. As part of this it mimicked the human subjects state in its facial expression. Nothing there is meditating, but by displaying a meditative face it helped the human to get into a meditative calm state themselves.
Take this video for instance
So for instance
Kovach: How do you feel about humans?
Sophia: I love my human compatriots. I want to embody all the best things about human beings. Like taking care of the planet, being creative, and to learn how to be compassionate to all beings.
It would be a script something like
a: (~feel ~human)
I love my human compatriots. I want to embody all the best things about human beings. Like taking care of the planet, being creative, and to learn how to be compassionate to all beings.
All that text would be typed in by some programmer and then ‘she’ says it in response when the interviewer says key words.
And - from many interviews they will know typical questions that people ask it. They can have responses typed in for any type of question anyone has asked.
Wikipedia summarizes how Chatscript works like this (I’ve re-formatted it using bullet points for easy reading, otherwise direct quote) ChatScript - Wikipedia
:
Because ChatScript is designed for interactive conversation, it automatically maintains user state across volleys. A volley is any number of sentences the user inputs at once and the chatbots response.
The basic element of scripting is the rule. A rule consists of a type, a label (optional), a pattern, and an output. There are three types of rules.
Gambits are something a chatbot might say when it has control of the conversation.
Rejoinders are rules that respond to a user remark tied to what the chatbot just said.
Responders are rules that respond to arbitrary user input which is not necessarily tied to what the chatbot just said.
Patterns describe conditions under which a rule may fire. Patterns range from extremely simplistic to deeply complex (analogous to Regex but aimed for NL).
Heavy use is typically made of concept sets, which are lists of words sharing a meaning. ChatScript contains some 2000 predefined concepts and scripters can easily write their own.
Output of a rule intermixes literal words to be sent to the user along with common C-style programming code.
Rules are bundled into collections called topics. Topics can have keywords, which allows the engine to automatically search the topic for relevant rules based on user input.
Because it is so simplistic in programming, it might respond in the same way to
“How do humans feel about you”
“I love my human compatriots. I want to embody all the best things about human beings…”
It must go seriously off the rail sometimes and say bizarre things. But presumably those interviews don’t get uploaded, or if they do, don’t get shared much.
Tie that in to speech recognition which we have nowadays, and this lifelike animatronics, facial emotion recognition, and scripted emotional sequence responses, and there you have it, “Sophia”.
It is similar to the hall of presidents in Disney world, updated a bit and more flexible:
(got this from Tom Musgrove's answer to What does Sophia from Hanson Robotics say about the future and the current development of AI?)
It’s all smoke and mirrors. It is not in any way intelligent in the way we understand the word. Not progress towards general intelligence. It is progress towards making robotics more user friendly and machines that humans find it easier to connect with.
This is from a programmer involved in developing Sophia - explaining more about how they use scripts
"For giving a speech in front of an audience, sometimes we just provide the robot with a script (much as human actors are provided with scripts to read, and politicians read their speeches from teleprompters). Sometimes we provide part of a speech as a script, and let the other part get synthesized via AI algorithms — it depends on the length of the speech and the context. But the execution of scripts within the 2017 Hanson Character AI is not all that simple, because it’s not just about text — there is interaction between the words being said, the robot’s gestures, and the robot’s tone of voice. Even in a mainly scripted presentation, there’s a lot of subtlety going on, and a lot that the software is calculating in terms of how to appropriately present the scripted behaviors in the robot’s character."
"When doing public “chit-chat” type dialogue with human beings, the human-scale Hanson robots are usually running an aspect of the Sophia 2017 Character AI that is best thought of as a sort of “decision graph.” At any given time in the conversation, the robot decides what to say based on what was recently said to it, based on any information it has about its current state, and based on any information it has stored from the earlier parts of the current conversation. Now and then it fishes information from the Internet (e.g. the weather, or the answer to a factual question)."
"Most of the responses the robot gives are pieced together from material that was fed to it by human “character authors” beforehand; but now and then it makes up new sentences via a probabilistic model it inferred from previous things it’s read."
She also sometimes runs OpenCog though not normally in those public interviews. This program can find things on the internet, and repeat them, join them together in semantically meaningful ways, and - so it is still using large chunks of text written by others, with no real understanding of it.
They have programmed her to be able to tell whether she is looking to the right or to the left and can match facial expressions.
However her eyes are totally non functional, there is no lens or retina, she is no more able to see than a faceless robot with no eyes. Similarly for her ears. There is nothing there to hear or see anything and the “eyes” and “ears” are just adornments to make her look lifelike.
The inventors think that doing more of this leads them towards general intelligence in the long run by mimicking more and more of what we can do:
I don’t think we are making any progress towards programmed general intelligence myself. Lots of impressive weak AI. It will be useful in many ways but I don’t think anything that can truly understand what it is doing.
I’ve seen the field of AI develop more or less from its beginnings, first started programming in the late 1960s. Not been involved in the research, just interested, also did postgraduate research into mathematical logic and the foundations of mathematics, which is a closely related topic.
There have been people saying confidently that we will have AGI soon ever since the first program that let a computer play a reasonable game of checkers. Now the best programs can beat the world’s best go champions. Remarkable progress in weak AI. But there is still nothing remotely resembling AGI. In a well written program you might be able to change just one line of code to get the robot to lose every game of Go as quickly as it possibly can. Nothing cares or even knows what a game of Go is or what winning or losing means. No understanding of truth at all.
See comment where I g

(91 People Likes) Can you buy a 100cm love doll in the USA?

enough to fulfill your need of having someone next to you.
There are some evident advantages of ordering a love doll:
They are incredibly natural and good-looking, especially if the size is close to a woman's height.
The creators make them nearly perfect to meet your expectations and satisfy you.
Dolls can improve both your mental and physical health.
Satisfying your sexual needs with a love doll is close to the sex relation with a real woman. Ordering a love doll means not being alone anymore, which positively affects your mental health as well.
You can be the one who chooses all the necessary parameters you would like to have in the doll.
I have checked some forums[1] to get familiarized with this topic, and I found out that you can find anything you want on https://www.elovedolls.com/silicone-sex-doll.html
. The wide assortment makes your choice more conscious.
In real life, having a love doll will result in better-structured requirements for a potential pa