I hope I don’t come off as offensive asking this, but is there really that much of a difference? I’m not a fan of services which prey on peoples loneliness, but isn’t the defining feature or these para-social relationship platforms that they are all make-belief? Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s very hard for me to imagine that you could form any sort of relationship with the thousands of lonely people who pay you money to notice them. Hell, they must have some impressive note taking strategies to remember it all. An AI might end up being more engaging and personal.
Presumably the goal of the people throwing money at an OF content-creator [in the form of "donations" — "here's some extra money without any implied obligation" — rather than e.g. paying for custom content] is to try to jump the gap from parasocial relationship to real (sugar?) relationship.
Of course, the OF creator can't form true relationships with thousands of people. I'm guessing that the implicit mental model in the heads of OF subscribers who "donate" to creators, is that this is a competition — that they're all participating in something like an ongoing hidden auction for a slice of the creator's limited time. They think "if I just pay the most, then she'll feel obligated to pay attention to me." (Of course, most creators feel no such sense of obligation.)
If OF subscribers can know in advance that that jump is fundamentally impossible — such as if they can discern that a dumb AI is responding to their donation-attached messages, and that that AI fundamentally has no feature to forward messages to the creator themselves — then they probably wouldn't bother "donating" in the first place.
That's not an unreasonable thought, but I think you underestimate how many people know that they are buying an illusion and are fine with that. To support that point: there are people right now who pay real money to chat with an AI companion that pretends to be their boy- or girlfriend. [0,1]
I think these people are, by and large, under no illusion that their AI companion is anything other than a computer program, but they get attached anyway and choose to live in the illusion.
I would agree that at least some OF consumers that throw donations at the OF creators, are knowingly buying an illusion. But I don't think your analogy holds. I think there's a fundamental difference between these two activities (interaction with OF creators, vs interaction with AI "character" chatbots.) The former is, in fact, expected to be literally parasocial — key word "social"; while the latter is expected to be a form of private entertainment.
---
Re: the former, I would read "interacting with an OF creator" as no different than interacting with any other "their job is to pretend to like you for money, but they aren't putting themselves in a position where they're ever obligated to do anything for you" type of sex worker. For example, the employees at strip clubs; or for maybe an even better analogy, the employees at a Japanese "host club".
These are quintessential parasocial relationships: the consumer of such a service is buying an illusion, but the "product" they expect to be buying is specifically the illusion of fondness, as performed by a human. They're buying a pure act of emotional labor done by a human — "service with a smile", but where the service is the smile. (It's the same thing people get out of donating to a Twitch streamer — the streamer thanks them on-stream for their donation. They get noticed in a performatively appreciative manner.)
And, depending on how in-demand that human's time is / how many other consumers want that same emotional labor output from them, that emotional labor can be incredibly highly-valued in the market. Which is why some OF subscribers — despite knowing that the possibility of deeper connection to the OF creator is likely illusory — are still willing to pay huge amounts of money. They aren't expecting to literally enter into a sugaring relationship with the OF creator; but they are expecting to get the creator's attention and possibly receive a hand-written thank-you note or shout-out or some custom selfie they didn't ask for. An act of emotional labor on the OF creator's part, performatively responding to their donation.
But, like with going to see a magic show, this kind of illusion is only valuable when it has high verisimilitude. Nobody will pays to see a bad magic act, if they know it's going to be bad. And nobody donates to an OF creator, if they know they're going to get AI responses.
(I'm sure there are some OF consumers who are not observant enough to realize they're receiving AI responses, and so feel like they are receiving the parasocial emotional labor service they paid for. Just like there are some people — usually children — who are not observant enough to notice the flaws in a bad magic act, creating a market for bad magicians.)
---
Re: the latter — paid subscribers to AI character chatbot services treat this economic relationship entirely differently. They don't see the individual chatbot as anything that holds value. And a business model that tries to get them to pay for a specific AI chatbot character, would likely never work.
Rather, from my understanding, to the people who subscribe to these things, paying for the service is analogous to paying a subscription to a game streaming service like GeForce Now.
In both cases, there's a large quantity of interactive entertainment out there that you want to "play". And running that interactive entertainment locally, would require capabilities that none of the devices you own possess. And it would be very expensive to buy the fancy hardware with those capabilities—possibly to the point of financial impracticality, if you want a top-of-the-line experience. (And, funny enough, in both of these cases, the fancy hardware is a GPU!)
Also, you might want some additional convenience — maybe you don't have anywhere to put a gaming rig, but want to play everything on a laptop. Or even on your phone sometimes.
A game streaming service has one major USP, and one minor USP:
- The major USP is that it trades CapEx for OpEx. Rather than owning / maintaining / dealing with a gaming rig, you can effectively rent one in the cloud.
- The minor USP is that it might provide subsidized access to a number of entertainment titles you'd otherwise have to purchase. (Xbox Game Pass does; GeForce Now does not.)
AI character chatbot services — which form a spectrum with generic flat-monthly-fee "Inference-as-a-Service" providers intended for use with private FOSS AI-character-chat frontends (e.g. SillyTavern) — have the same two USPs:
- The major USP is, again, trading CapEx for OpEx.
- The minor USP is a bit stranger — the services that specifically market themselves as "AI character chat" services often market a model that's being continuously fine-tuned on other users' interactions to improve its fidelity for the specific use-case; and, less often, market a proprietary stable of characters developed for the service. (But "AI characters" themselves — the definitions that make a chatbot into a particular character — are mostly considered to be a commodity; they're posted for free to various "AI character card" hosting services, and most systems in this space just expect you to import the characters you're interested in from such hosting services, rather than offering their own proprietary ones.)
All in all, there's no "illusion" here for anyone to "fall for." There's just a desired capability (running AI models to play with), with a zero-sum trade-off being made between self-hosting that capability, vs. paying someone else to manage it for you.
There is, as always, the exception that the world contains some very unobservant people — possibly again children — who will mistakenly develop a parasocial bond to AI characters because they fail to notice the flaws and limitations that make interactions with an AI character qualitatively different from interactions with a human, and thereby fail to move past the initial sense of full immersion/verisimilitude they feel when interacting with such systems.
But these chumps are the exception. Most subscribers to these services are not confused about what they're paying for; they have moved past any initial impression of full immersion. Instead, they just see AI characters as fun toys — entertainment software! — and they're paying $10/mo or whatever because that's a fair price to pay to access a unique type of fun toy.
The key testable hypothesis here, is that once even our phones have the GPU grunt required to run high-fidelity "roleplaying" LLMs locally, the bottom will drop out of this market; there'll be no reason to pay for an "AI character streaming service" indefinitely, once your phone's OpEx gets you free unlimited access to that capability locally, in the form of a free or one-time-cost app that does the same thing.
(...also, just as a tangent: this is probably the "everybody knows it but nobody's going to say it" reason that so many people got so excited about the new Mac Mini. It's a perfect single-user AI-character-chatbot RP model host, that takes up minimal space and has a reasonable price-point. Many people currently paying for these services would actually rather trade OpEx for CapEx — the CapEx was previously just too dang high to make it worth it!)
Isn't the entire reason people pick OF over traditional porn is they get to have a personal connection with the performer? DMs, custom requests etc.? Seems like it would make a huge difference to a subscriber who's looking for that experience. Maybe traditional porn will make a come back once AI dominates the OF scene.
Not only that, but CB/MFC is preferable to Tinder. The technology to fake it, to catfish it, doesn't exist yet -- at least the video part. Chat is another matter.
AI isn't replacing a personal connection with the performer here. The baseline case for OnlyFans messages is that they go to a paid phone sex operator who the performer hires to manage messages.
People should know if they talk to a bot or a human. This goes for only-fans, customer service, anything. A human pressing a "send" button does not change anything. But disclosing it would hurt the specific business, right? So it matters to something for someone. I respect AI-companion apps like replika much more than this.
They should also know if they're talking to the actual content creator, or an operator paid to pretend to be them.
Which is not the case currently, you think you're talking to your favorite porn actress but you're talking to some dude in India pretending to be her and trying to sell you "exclusive content" (i.e. prerecorded videos from a catalog).
> Isn't the entire reason people pick OF over traditional porn is they get to have a personal connection with the performer? DMs, custom requests etc.?
Hm...
I assume custom requests would either happen realtime-- in which case it's not currently possible to substitute AI video output-- or asynchronously-- in which case the proof of personal connection eventually happens during a future realtime video stream.
If the customer is paying for DM'ing during times when the person isn't streaming, I'm having a hard time imagining why it would matter whether AI is used or not. Well, at least if the quality is decent enough for what I imagine are rather terse, domain-specific DMs. :)
They don't do this at all. I know a guy who worked as a cam-girl manager for some time. His job was to communicate in her place with 4-6 people at the same time (via text of course) while the model "acts" on the screen.
And pretty soon, we'll be able to get rid of the model acting on the screen as well. I'd say in about 10 years the entire operation will be automated by AI. Probably less than 10 if things keep developing at this breakneck pace.
(At least, that will be true for run of the mill cam girls. Obviously certain other types of influencers may be more difficult to emulate via AI.)
I cannot figure out if vast multitudes of incels carrying on relationships with AI sexbots is more or less harmful than if they were just being catfished by real, but insincere person(s).
Honestly this dystopia is a big letdown over the one I was expecting.
Essentially that is part the 'male sedation hypothesis'.
Due to the amount of incels or men who aren't really in relationships or even work these days, they should be causing significant social unrest as they have nothing to lose and try and overthrow the current social structure. In reality we hardly see any real violence or trouble from incels other than the odd angry rant on social media and the idea is that things like porn, video games and social media take care of the base needs just enough to stop the angry from boiling over and causing real trouble.
I think the statistics speak for themselves. There were exactly two famous incel terrorists aka Elliot Rodger and another guy whose name I don't remember. They both lived in the US and honestly the only thing that connects them with other shooters is that they had guns.
This type of terrorism did happen in Germany i.e. the "Halle" shooter, but he had to rely on homemade weapons with his own black powder ammunition and his attack failed, because his guns weren't strong enough to breach doors at a synagogue. What he did do is shoot a random woman passing close by (less than 5m distance) who was angrily glaring at him and then he went to a random kebab shop to shoot up an immigrant, before the police caught him.
It's really mostly a matter of keeping guns away from people who shouldn't have access to them.
Here you are primarily focusing on what's happening to them.
But we shouldn't forget that a big part of the "incel" community is actively pushing for reducing rights & liberties of women, because they see them as "things" or just "lesser humans".
If you replace real women by AI sexbots, not only you remove them a source of income (I know, it's not perfect today either, with pimps & stuff like that, but at least some women can make a living with this) but also there's a big risk that the AI are going to be quite extreme in their behavior, alienating "incels" even more, which would be harder for real women to do.
I don't think most of these guys are interested in a Black Snake Moan situation. I know the type and they mostly are content to play video games, eat junk food, and whack off all day. They are predictably unproductive in the political arena.
Besides, whether it hurts women or not, people at the top of that industry are going to replace the vast majority of the women working with AI bots. They'll do so for the profit increase.
Money is in the driver's seat. Not men's rights or women's rights. People can certainly have their preferred philosophies, but that's not going to change what's going to happen.
It's only harmful if you hate men. If you actually like men as fellow human beings (not necessarily as boyfriend material), you wouldn't care about what they are doing to make themselves happy as long as they don't harm anyone.
I don't have the numbers. But I find it hard to believe one can communicate with a few clients at the same time and still work for camera. (with private sessions as an exception)
You're quite simply wrong. I know many cam models who have been very successful afterwards, generally running their own business, not working for someone else.
Just to take one example, I know one who opened a beauty salon in St Petersburg, grew that business, opened additional salons in first Vladivostok, then Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Moscow, and most recently Dubai. Earlier this year she got residence and moved to Dubai permanently.
To give another example, in the USA this time: Aella. I don't think I need to say anything more there, you can google.
They are occupying a brief period where sex work is white market enough to not be quite as dangerous or "disgraceful" as the old days, but not accepted or legal enough to be clobbered in competition by everyone else.
Feminism and their desire to legitimize sex work will be the death knell to high wages for sex workers, and eventually drive the sex workers asking for it to other occupations that suit their risk and profit appetite. ~50% of the population has a pussy and if it's seen as completely benign, legal, and normal to sell yourself the supply will go up 10 fold to the point it becomes a job every stay at home mom vies for while applying to be a transcriptionist or whatever else.
A brief period that has lasted for almost 24 years already. Livejasmin started in 2001 -- basically as soon as the internet and typical PCs could support streaming video. MyFreeCams started in 2004. I think the FriendFinder spin-off cams.com was in that time period too. All before Youtube was founded in 2005!
Your cam model acquaintance moved to Dubai, why do you think that is? It is a place full of rich people who want escorts and the price is bidding towards infinity because they're operating on a very toned down version of Shariah law that is in place to provide a tenuous balance between not killing the golden goose of Dubai and maintaining effectively an Islamic Monarchy.
She is chasing the grey line of risk, and Dubai is the sweet spot right now of risk:reward. When she is found out, the best she can hope for is a revocation of her visa and a swift kick out of the country.
She is not an escort. She is 40 years old with a family and owns a beauty salon in Dubai (and a chain of them back in Russia). She left webcam around 2010.
> I know many cam models who have been very successful afterwards, generally running their own business, not working for someone else.
What does successful(ness?) has to do with being smart?
I guess we both can name quite a few people (doctors, scientists etc) who are very smart and knowledgeable in more than one field. But are not successful. At least not in any economical scense.
>Just to take one example, I know one who opened a beauty salon in St Petersburg, grew that business, opened additional salons in first Vladivostok, then Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Moscow, and most recently Dubai. Earlier this year she got residence and moved to Dubai permanently.
>To give another example, in the USA this time: Aella. I don't think I need to say anything more there, you can google.
>Понял?
That's just a typical russian thinking: if one can push through their way through whatever shit they are in - they are smart.
No they are not. Successful? Maybe. Hardworking? Sure, I never said that they are lazy or something like that.
Hotshots as they are - most of them are not smart.
> I know one who opened a beauty salon
I know many people who started working right after school graduation. They worked hard and quite successful too. Some have businises or other goods sources of income. Still - they are borish and anyone with at least few hobbies will have hard time talking to them because they have very few interests outside of money and spending money.
> I know one who opened a beauty salon in St Petersburg, grew that business, opened additional salons ...
I mean, it kinda just makes sense. If you're actually seeing them on a platform competing with countless others then they've demonstrated that they're at least good at marketing. They likely learned it themselves as well.
If you willingly pay money to talk to AI slop that's one thing, but if you're sold access to a person then that's what you should get. You're right that they're both empty experiences, but one is an erosion of consumer rights and the other is just stupid.
But you never got that; the successful OnlyFans people have always had teams pretending to be them. Anyone who ever believed otherwise is like a kid who thinks that the mall Santa Claus is the real guy.
I'd imagine the typical long tail creator isn't successful enough to pay people for that. Hence automation. But sure, to the extent there's been misrepresentation about that, it's wrong.
I do not think it's about relationship - it's about exclusive/personal access which is what is promised/suggested. And no, it's not about sense of ownership either - just exclusive access. Like a one to one coaching/training rather than a group one. Only a nutter or an absolutely desperate and a nutter would believe they are in a relationship with an OF model.
All the top earners on these platforms are already employing teams of people to manage interactions with fans. Adding an AI layer on top doesn't change all that much in that regard.
Not really no. The models that are replying to fans directly are just saying whatever they need to to get more money, often from scripts theyve written beforehand. The ones that do well offload the communication to an assistant, so the fan isn't even talking to model faking it, but an assistant faking it.
The people in the DMs tend to be the whales, the top 0.1% of spenders that get you most of your income. That the "unwashed masses" that pay a subscription and leave some comments don't have a real relationship is clear, but once you are at DMs there is the expectation of at least real engagement with the creator.
Of course big creators have long outsourced this. You aren't writing with them but with someone entirely different who gets paid to answer messages. Using AI is just the next step in enshittification of something that's pretty exploitative to begin with.
The number of people here who see no difference between the two scenarios despite one of them having a very clear intent to deceive is–well, I'd say shocking, but this is exactly what I would expect. It is really just soul-crushingly depressing.
And this is really the tricky part of mental health care.
Is it a disorder to be depressed when the actual situation is really screwed up and soul crushing? Because most folks will get prescribed anti-depressants for this kind of situation.
