Hacker News Reader

Comment by seba_dos1 | Hacker News Reader

Sufficiently simulated love is just as real as real love.

"He'd take care of the boy because he felt he ought to, because he felt a bounden duty, but the boy'd never know the difference -- it'd feel like love to him, and it'd be a whole lot more dependable than love ever was."

Good quote. Where is that from?

Prentice Alvin, by Orson Scott Card

Is that what your simulated thoughts tell you?

I think it would depend on the person. For some people, if you know a machine is not capable of feeling anything in spite of it acting like it loves you, then it simply won't be the same as the reciprocal affection shared between two people or even a pet and its caretakers.

Sufficiently simulated emotion requires maintenance just like a real one. It's not about which particular mechanism, biological or electronic, is responsible for actions that you observe. It's about investing yourself in a emotion. After all, at some point simulation becomes indistinguishable from the "real" thing, on both action and intention levels.

So, basically, what you're saying is "some people may have higher bar for their perceived sufficiency than others".

All I'm saying is, with something like love, for most people it matters if the other individual can actually feel something too. Suppose there are two guys, both in a relationship with someone. One is in love with their significant other, the other is not, but their actions are exactly the same. If each of their significant others asks "do you really love me or are you just pretending?" and each guys answers honestly, you can be sure that the significant other of the guy who is pretending is going to be pretty let down. That guy's SO thought the feelings were mutual, but they weren't.

Now imagine that you know up front that a machine can never actually feel love, just act like it loves you. This is a similar situation.

Where's the point where the simulated entity stops just "acting like it loves you" and starts "feeling love"?

But sufficiency is observer-dependent.

"This is my (IMHO sufficiently simulated) love for you!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com