A perfect application of the Forer effect: humans have an amazing ability to interpret what can apply to anyone as having special significance for themselves.
It's the same reason why horoscopes and fortune cookies work. Stepping back and thinking logically, it's easy to see why their messages might apply to a lot of people. But when you're reading one, you can't help but think, "Ah! It says that I would encounter adversity at work this week, but overcome it! I knew that presentation wasn't the end of the world." And if you're a little lonely or down and need emotional rapport, you can't help but feel a little spark of excitement and connection when that Mechanical Turker claims to like your favorite TV show - especially because the text messages from the fake partner look just like they would from a real one.
No matter how deeply we trust our logical conclusions, our emotional response remains the same. We can't help but feel worthier when we're being praised (even by computers - see the Silicon Sycophants study: http://pdf.aminer.org/000/307/350/information_requirements_a...), hurt when we're being insulted, and connected when we're being connected with.
When I was young I picked up a book at a friend's house on astrology. I am a Taurus. I mistakenly opened it on another sign thinking I was reading the chapter on what made up a Taurus character. I was reading and nodding my head "wow, this is kind of weird. That is me. I do that. Well, I'm not like that but it's not going to be a 100% fit" After several pages I realized my mistake. And then I realized the Forer effect without knowing what it was or that it had a name.
(The background is she just found out she was actually born 3 months after her parents told her she was born - they lied to get her to start school a year earlier.)
Astrology is obviously nonsense, but it seems plausible that the season of birth could have a personality effect: the cold dead of winter, with little fresh food vs spring etc, also from the attitudes of surrounding adults.
Of course, different near the equator, and phase-shifted in the southern hemisphere, and... much less pronounced in modern times, with supermarkets, refrigeration, air-conditioning/heating, imported foods, and wider social presence (newspapers, TV, radio, internet, phone) etc.
There are actual studies. Lots of professional athletes were in the older part of their cohort when they were younger. So the effect Terr_ described seems to outweigh the one you describe.
> No matter how deeply we trust our logical conclusions, our emotional response remains the same. We can't help but feel worthier when we're being praised (even by computers ...), hurt when we're being insulted, and connected when we're being connected with.
I just started playing The Walking Dead. In one scene, after another character saved Clementine from a zombie before I could, the game said, "Clementine remembers that you didn't save her." A very different feeling than failing and having to replay from a checkpoint.
I had a lot of similar feelings with Mass Effect series. In this game all the decisions you make permanently reshape the game world, which carries through the first game to second and third. Major and minor characters in the last game may be missing or doing different things based on your actions in the first game. While playing I felt the impact of my steps in even tiny details.
This, + general storyline and execution of the product made it the first game I found myself to be really involved emotionally with. Say, when I picked up the second game and met an important NPC from the first, I literally felt like I've just rejoined with an old friend. By the third game I actually printed out a photo of my character and her entire team. It's crazy how deep a good video game can touch you.
Oh, and I spent 10-15 minutes thinking heavily about morality and consequences just to choose the right ending...
Funny you should mention Mass Effect, because I'm playing that for the first time as well. Evidently there's a romantic sub-plot, making it even more relevant to this story. Will I get an Xbox achievement and 25 gamer points if I get lucky?
I don't know. I played PC. Also, achievements in a game like ME are stupid and ruin immersion. Turn them off if you can (on PC version I don't recall them popping up in game anyway).
As for romantic subplots - they are very good and the game will totally hijack your emotions through them.
I haven't played this game, but after I posted OP on my facebook feed I went out to a party and one of my friends confessed that it made him think of Mass Effect also. Apparently he put quite a lot of time into trying to build a relationship with a hot NPC only to find out she was gay. In his words 'I was shattered. I put all this time into building the relationship and she wasn't even into guys'.
You should try "Wolf Among Us" as well. It was amazing how that game tricked my normally passive personality into acting out in anger, chasing down leads for revenge instead of justice and then feeling like the monster I had become. By the end, I felt redeemed, but still vulnerable because my weaknesses had been exposed. All of that and I played the entire thing on nothing more than a tiny PS Vita screen.
Books are great for making you feel something about fictional (or non fictional) characters, but they've got nothing on games when it comes to making you feel something about yourself.
Good books are great for making you feel disdain towards imagined (or real) unwashed gamers, but they've got nothing on games when it comes to 2nd-order meta-self-trolling.
Video games have always been very interesting this way to me, and there are some real gems lately that manage to tap into very emotional parts of my brain. Fallout is ripe with ethical dilemmas, almost to the point where I found myself unable to proceed when the choice is not obvious. You know the characters are not real, you are alone playing a single-player game; but you can't help but try to figure out how to help the character. The Fable series is really great this way too. There it's actually the focus and the theme of the game.
Only every played the second Fable but I still remember the one choice you need to make near the end and have to pick one of three "fates".
Not sure if it's considered a spoiler at this point but there's basically the one option to return a beloved companion to life (after recently being forced to suffer his death in the game). It wasn't necessarily the most logical choice nor is it the "smart" choice if you're treating it solely as a game and trying to get the most points/gold/etc....
...but when I was offered that choice there was not a single question which one I would pick. It's all just pixels and textures and sound effects but the chance to return a character that had followed you for most of the game hit me way harder than I might have expected. Manipulative,cheap, emotional exploitation? Maybe. No regrets though.
Worse. The first time I played, I picked a different option. There was a bug in the game where you could see the companion on the map, but could never reach him. I spent hours trying to find a way, before starting the game over just to choose differently.
That theory kind of breaks down when they get into specifics about military service, clothing, scars, etc. Things that a cold reader wouldn't have any access to.
However, a skilled cold reader will in fact get specifics (though they'll also have bad guesses), by making further general guesses based on the information you've already confirmed for them. For example, military service is very common for men in a certain age range, who were drafted to Vietnam. Clothing can be pretty uniform for people who you know to be/can guess to be in a certain demographic. Most people (beyond children) have scars.
If your comment was intended to suggest that some people actually can communicate with dead people: dude, no. It's not true. Your emotions are being preyed on for someone else's profit.
I'm not going to get into the over-arching point on a board inhabited by subscribers to scientism, but don't you think the jig is is kind of up if you're told someone has a scar through their right eye and they actually didn't, or that someone had a favorite shirt that has a tear in a certain place (that both of those things didn't exist, etc).
In other words, a level of specificity that is not so easily dismissed as a scammer interpreting the information they've been given.
Anyone with supernatural powers that takes that offer is a fool - their life would be effectively over. A person that could, say, see the future, is better off predicting the winning lottery numbers and sidestepping the almost certain involvement with government agents, or worse.
(Not that winning the lottery is statistically a good thing for one's quality of life either, which is a plausible reason that "psychic wins lottery" has never been a headline...)
This is about the future, but I think can be applied equally derisively to talking to the dead. Also My Dinner With Andre is a great movie so why not share it here:
There's a fine line (maybe not so fine) as to when something becomes manipulation IMHO - though if someone's paying $25 monthly for someone(s) to chat with to feel connected then I suppose they've applied an added bias or value; makes me feel a bit sad if the people aren't doing it just for fun.
People are doing sadder things than this to keep the emotional lights on. At least it's cheaper than prostitutes.
You know the saddest first-world thing I've ever heard? A prostitute doing a reddit AMA had a client once that wanted her to sing "happy birthday" for him. It was his birthday and no one else was going to.
That's rather broad. There are moral issues with sex slavery, for instance, but prostitution as a concept is fairly amoral unless you mistakenly believe the sexuality of others is something you have a right to judge.
> It's the same reason why horoscopes and fortune cookies work.
A more charitable interpretation of horoscopes and fortune cookies could be that, given that human behavior and problems falls into recognizable patterns, generic solutions can be offered as a sort of framework or scaffold for the received to fill in their particular details and get started with a more appropriate and personal solution.
What else did you expected? from a little something that came inside of a cookie!!!
This drive to reduce humanity to a set of chemical reactions and evolutionary traits is misplaced, because nothing makes less amazing our ability to love just about anything. And we should celebrate that, instead of being condescending about it, because you know, life would be very boring and unfulfilling without feelings.
Understanding how something works does not preclude enjoyment or wonder. Richard Feynman rather famously observed that understanding more of the science can deepen your appreciation:
Funny to see this here. My business partner did the design and I'm friends with the team.
I can't say that I feel much for the business, but I've been continually impressed by its ability to generate press. People _love_ talking about and debating this concept, and I can't say that I've been completely free from it.
That being said, this is currently probably the most covered startup from Saint Louis. While it is nice to see a startup from this ecosystem getting this amount of press attention, it's disappointing at the same time. I know a lot of people working on very ambitious and difficult problems that would kill for a tenth of the amount of attention that Invisible Boyfriend and Invisible Girlfriend get.
I just learned about this today. This is the greatest marketing concept since "million dollar homepage." My life is a failure for not having thought of this.
> My life is a failure for not having thought of this.
Actually, I did think of this, many times. But my biggest bottleneck was: how will I scale up the replies? I could handle being a "boyfriend" for, say, 10 women. But any bigger, and I'd need help. I considered MTurk, but thought that quality control would be an issue. (What if the MTurk guy really starts hitting on the woman, they exchange numbers and then he starts stalking her?). Anyways: after considering all the messiness, I gave it a pass.
Anyways: after considering all the messiness, I gave it a pass.
There is a lesson here. "Computer people" have a real aversion to simply scaling up a business by using humans to do things. Sometimes that simple answer (hire a bunch of people to do stuff) is the right answer, provided the economics of the business work.
Same here. Actually, I didn't think of it as a "proof" service, I was thinking that bits of positive human interaction ("invisible friend") provide a lot of emotional value, and you could crowd-source a text conversation with a fake friend, modulo quality control, and people would pay for it.
By greatest marketing concept you mean a quick and easy way to make money, yeah? I wouldn't be so hard on yourself for not having thought of it. Personally, I believe humanity would be at a net gain had no one thought of or executed on this idea.
You realize this has real and tangible value to lots of folks, right?
Despite spending the vast majority of my life on the Internet, every single day I am disappointed by how judgmental and incapable of empathy folks are who say things to other people online.
Jesus, put yourself in someone else's shoes just this once. I wouldn't use this service, and I don't know anyone who would, but to say that Invisible Boyfriend is a net loss to humanity requires a level of hubris that, even today, is stunning to find on the Internet.
This is a life/death thing to some LGBT folks, who if outed face physical harm from their own families and friends. Helping someone like that stay in the closet until they can get to safety is a service Invisible Boyfriend adds to this world. Who the fuck are you to say that's not a value-add?
I was right there with you until you brought up the LGBT bit. This service has no real safety benefits for members of the queer community who are in danger. Full stop..
Queer person here. This company is clearly riding on the coat tails of the community and doesn't give two shits about us. They are simply marketing themselves this way to tap into a market of closeted people and they decided to play this up to boost revenue.
If they were actually concerned with the safety and wellbeing of LGBT folk they would create something that reflects the needs of communities and it would take into account how complex we are. They would not push something so simplistic on us claiming it's good for us without ever asking themselves if this is true or if their idea is actually a positive contribution to the community. I'm not sorry to say this: LGBT issues are not so simple that they can be solved with such quick fixes because a handful of community members find such fixes momentarily useful. This company might tangentially help a few people but realistically it might also make a lot of scenarios worse. More credibility to closet stories = less people out = less safety due to smaller numbers; more attention drawn to fake SMS relationship = higher chance of forced outing; transaction history on a teenager's bank account = higher chance of forced outing to parents = higher chance of homelessness and/or abuse; only some people can afford $25/mo. = separation of LGB community by class = fragmentation of community; doesn't consider the entire queer community = less solidarity; etc.
Also companies should stop saying LGBT when really they mean "some lesbians & some gays & maybe some bisexuals but not any trans* folk and definitely no one who doesn't have money".
In my mind there are two major ways you could keep a queer person in danger safe: 1. educate the would-be aggressors so their bigotry goes away, or 2. keep them physically safe from harm (guards, locks, etc.). This service does neither of those things.
In fact, maybe in some ways it's worse; some people may _never_ get to a point in their life where it is safe to come out. This is sort of like saying to them "you can't have a real SO because it's not safe; but here, have this fake one to tide you over". Similar to "you can't get married, but you can have this civil union".
"Your mind" completely ignores non US-cultures, so "your mind" needs to expand a bit.
Pretending like a man in Iran or Russia can come out as gay and be safe isn't going to change the immutable fact that a gay man in either of those two countries is in serious danger simply by being a gay man.
Of all the technological wonders of the setting, "ractors" are what amazed me the most. It's the perfect interactive experience, a full-time "Wizard of Oz"[0].
Maybe we can see something of the kind in the following year with the advancement of VR thechnology..
I think it's not as much about social proof as it is about feeling protected and cared for. The marketing strategy ("social proof" over "feeling lonely") let the users benefit from the service without feeling shame: loneliness is unfortunately still considered some kind of stigma.
Invisible Boyfriend might be the polar opposite and complement of prostitution: the first simulating the love between a protector and his protégé, the second providing a sex partner. I'm not implying any moral fault, but it's fascinating nonetheless.
People used to look at me weird when I explained how I was paranoid that someone was routing all of my conversations between multiple people, in an effort to cluster intelligence and intellectual contributions without any participant knowing what they were contributing to.
Take that, therapy. Yes, the paranoia was somewhat imaginative, but it was an exaggeration of something that actually can be mechanized. The people I explained this to didn't believe me that you could create chat streams this way.
I hope this doesn't come across as rude, but I sure hope that you got to deal with that fear with a professional. That would be a difficult way to live...
Not surprised that it works, it looks like something fun to do on both sides. In fact, i believe people who love romance would sign up for a free service like this on both ends. (Since their niche is people who dont want to have the actual relationships, they could easily pair up their users with each other as pure conversation partners).
The sad thing is the reason that this app exists. Has it become so taboo to be single that you have to pay to hide it?
Has it become so taboo to be single that you have to pay to hide it?
Apparently yes, sadly.
Even so, I can't imagine this app could possible be worth the time (let alone the cost). Especially when simply lying to people (who aren't close friends anyway), as needed -- or in the case of a good chunk of my direct family, explicitly firewalling ("Look, over the years I've been having various relationships with various people. If any of them become important enough for you to know about, I'll let you know, eventually") to be easy enough, and to work perfectly fine for all concerned.
The bottom line is that intimacy is a gift, and at no point are you obligated to provide it to anyone you don't really consider to be that important in your life -- or in situations that make you uncomfortable.
> Even so, I can't imagine this app could possible be worth the time
I think that's why the founder is talking of expanding the service already, such as getting flowers on Valentine's, say. It might provide social worth to some, who see this extravaganza displayed on every other desk at their work.
I can see this evolving from "let others think I have a boyfriend" to "I'm going to feel like I have a boyfriend".
People already pay for sex. People already pay for non-sexual escorts (which i believe is mostly for show-off[0]). I can totally see people paying for the "boyfriend experience".
Some random texts, gifts in specific days. A compliment and a "how's your day". All in pure 21st century fashion - social-media centered.
It's depressing but I can imagine a lot of people that, while having lots of friends, are emotionally lonely.
Why not generate custom made, fully interactive, multi-media waifus[1]
[0] I think it affirms a man's power if he shows up with a pretty lady.
Years ago I worked in the messaging industry. We had an "adult chat" platform in the UK, and to our surprise a lot of the messages looked to be lonely people rather than after something sexual - even had one client wanting to use it in the US, where the phone networks only let you run "non-adult" services, but they reckoned there was enough of a market. (Don't remember what actually happened in the end.)
The trouble is that you need human moderators to prevent trolling/harassment/etc. - and if you're going to pay humans to read every message, you may as well have them write them as well.
> The sad thing is the reason that this app exists. Has it become so taboo to be single that you have to pay to hide it?
Article mentions more traditional cultures, and semi-closeted gays. I think singledom is becoming much more acceptable to our generation than it ever was before - but it doesn't play so well with our parents.
The really sad thing is that by using something (like this) to veil singleness, one cuts off any genuine interest from a genuine person. Few will initiate a date with someone texting their (unbenownst virtual) "significant other".
But I’d say there’s a significant chunk of folk* who will not hit on people they know are in a relationship. In the first month of your subscription this probably won’t have an effect, but by the sixth month...
----
* This is obviously very cultural - who and where you are can change this a lot in either direction I imagine.
There's a significant chunk of folk who will not hit on anyone at all because they have no confidence or social skills. We get along just fine without them.
I think it actually depends upon the couple. People who care what other people think tend to date other people who care what other people think, while people who make up their own mind tend to date other people who make up their own mind. This trait seems to be more strongly assortative than pretty much anything else I've observed - intelligence, social class, beauty, etc.
So the grandparent's point is well-taken. You date folks for whom competition spurs attraction, because that's what you believe. Someone who doesn't isn't going to be attracted to someone who's always got a girl on his finger.
She doesn't want the unattractive guys to hit on her, so she texts her fake significant other. The fantasy of an attractive guy being her boyfriend is better than a real boyfriend being just a regular guy.
Or maybe it's just a polite way of turning down a guy you're not interested in. Maybe having that instant out is more convenient than having to fight off advances for an hour.
It still seems completely unnecessary. The standard way of turning people down nowadays seems to be to smile and say "sure, we should get lunch one of these days, you can contact me at my email/IM/Facebook/whatever", and then never reply when they contact you. What could be simpler and safer?
This is a very good example of male privilege. What comes to mind as the first thing that would happen as a result of this?
Most women are smaller than the men that hit on them, and are constantly told they need to be vigilant against assault (this is a consequence of victim-blaming, which is wrongheaded, but nonetheless psychologically influencial). A woman saying "I'm not interested" is directly rejecting the man hitting on them, and only for her own reasons. I know people who have been slapped because they rejected someone openly. In a situation that wasn't a crowded environment (for example, if a woman is being harassed on a street) things could easily go worse.
On the other hand, if the woman says "Sorry, I have a boyfriend," the implication is that she would sleep with him, he's so attractive, but sorry, another man already owns her. Men respect men far more than they respect women. I am not a physically intimidating man, but I can defuse situations between aggressive men in clubs hitting on my women friends quite easily by claiming to be their boyfriend.
This has nothing to do with politeness and, like many interactions between women and men, everything to do with survival.
That is a very bleak, and, if I may say so, quite sexist world view. Or I guess I should count myself lucky that in my work/social environments, people don't base their respect of other people on gender, but on behaviour and attitude.
Also, I don't necessarily see vigilance against a potential attacker as wrongheaded. I see it as sensible, you're hedging against a very-low-probability but very-dire-consequence risk. No matter how close we come to complete gender equality, there will always be mentally disturbed persons who will attack people weaker than them. (Note that I am not saying that most assailants or rapists have mental disorders, it seems the research says only ~ 10% do.)
Men get slapped or hit with bottles or glasses when they come on too strong as well. I think this is bad behavior and it's because of the person. You think it matters if a girl breaks something glass on your face that she's weaker? You're still going to have glass pieces embedded in your face.
This is not a gender issue. It's an issue of not assaulting another person.
You made an invalid comparison and, interestingly, when analyzed your scenario exactly supports tedks' argument. Both scenarios hinge on a man acting aggressively against a woman who doesn't share his wishes. In both cases, the man controls the situation: he can choose to leave, deescalate or push harder. In contrast, the woman has no option to go back to enjoying her evening unless he chooses to allow it. All of the other options involve risk: calling for help (or the police) may not work and may have a social cost (“what a bitch, he was just trying to buy her a drink”). If she tries to leave, he can follow her to somewhere with fewer witnesses. Maybe she calls the police: do they send someone, does the officer arrive quickly enough, does the guy talk them into leaving without doing anything – and does any of this enrage him enough to assault her later?
Sure, the single most common outcome is that a drunken ass eventually gets the message and leaves her alone but all of those are possibilities which she has to weigh – and do so with the knowledge that if one of the low but still way too common terrible outcomes happens, TV and the internet will be full of people lining up to say it was her fault for making the wrong choice.
That's why tedks rightly called it male privilege: you or I can simply go out to a bar and have a beer without thinking about any of this. Given the circumstances, I can completely understand why someone who doesn't enjoy that privilege would choose an effective alternative even if some guy thinks it's breaking the rules.
You mean the guy has to take all of the risk of rejection because women don't approach men. Let's be real here: I've been approached by more gay men than by women in my life. You're saying having to work for something is privilege?
Some people don't take like to take no for an answer. Some people will continue to engage, despite a woman making it clear that they are not interested; some of those people, however, respect other men enough that they will disengage when they find out a woman is "taken".
And as for the politeness of lying, consider "white lies". Sometimes honesty, even non-brutal honesty, is not the polite option.
> one cuts off any genuine interest from a genuine person
Maybe that's the point. Maybe the users of this service are trying to focus on school or work, and are tired of friends and family trying to set them up with significant others.
“Oh my God,” I thought. “This total stranger, whoever he or she is, thinks I cry myself to sleep while watching public television and texting a paid fake boyfriend I named after an actor.”
To all you folks saying this is really sad, or wrong, this is a novelty. It's like the digital equivalent of a gag gift. It's a great conversation starter and really very funny.
So uh, there are attractive girls on Fiverr that will pretend to be your girlfriend on Facebook for a month (friending, n posts/likes on your posts per month, etc) for five dollars. I paid two of them to "fight" over me just to troll my friends. It turns out this piques interest in other women :-P
Because you don't want the people in your life knowing that you pay money to manipulate and deceive those around you? Seems smart to keep that a secret.
[edited because I was unnecessarily brusque.] It was a practical joke, pretty much at my own expense, and I told my friends afterwards. The "joke" is that two very attractive women fighting over me is very unbelievable.
Ah now that would be interesting. It seems like in the examples provided the virtual SO is reactive, responding to what the user says (ex "I like Downton Abby") whereas when they reach out the messages are generic. I wonder if the conversation would generate its own 'depth'.
Virtual girlfriends have been popular in Japan for years. Love Plus (2009) for the Nintendo DS was the first to catch on. There are now many others. Some text and send you pictures of what they're doing. You can send your virtual girlfriend presents on-line, which costs real money.
For most people, looks ARE part of the equation. It's like removing Pi from an equation. I wonder what's going to happen when science makes looks whatever we want, like hair color.
> For most people, looks ARE part of the equation. It's like removing Pi from an equation.
Did you read that OKCupid piece on when they turned off profile pictures for a day? Supposedly the result was better for their users - people who went on these "truly blind dates" had significantly better odds of a successful relationship coming out of it than the site average. Looks do matter, but the way we encounter each other via technology is artificial and superficial. I wonder if there would be a market for a text-only matching app.
When I met my fiancee on OKCupid, she had really grainy profile pics. She'd initially refused to give me her number (she had trouble with stalkers in the past) and was like "Oh, you know what I look like, you can find me on the Caltrain platform." I was like, "No, actually I don't. Here's mine." I wouldn't have been able to find her just going off the profile pics.
That said, there's probably no market for a text-only dating service. The problem is that people who end up in successful relationships drop out of the dating pool entirely, and are no longer in the customer base. We shut down our OKCupid accounts a few weeks after meeting, for example. The online dating industry is really fueled by hookups; if it weren't for casual encounters, dating sites would have no repeat customers. Tinder is the one company that really gets this - they're like "Yeah, we won't even make a pretense about this being about personality, realistically you just want to have sex with somebody hot and then come back to the app tomorrow. If you end up in a relationship, well, good for you! (And not for us. :-/)"
Didn't OKC try a new service called "Crazy Blind Date"? I remember signing up for it. It used geo proximity to match up people. The system wouldn't show you pics of each other until you both agreed on a date at a nearby place. Had a little chat with some woman nearby. When the system finally showed pics to us, she mysteriously had some "emergency" and couldn't make it.... :-D
Two people that have had surgery to look beautiful are going to marry, fall in love and start a family. And then be really surprised when their baby comes out fugly.
Adult genetic engineering would not be inheritable. Your gonads produce variations of genetic material based on their own blueprints (which come from you parents, not your genes).
How would you genetically engineer an adult, or anyone who is born? It would require changing the DNA of all cells, as well as executing those changes.
And not having the immune system reject all the changes as soon as its own DNA starts changing.
It has the same problem as upgrading a distributed system that checksums all incoming protocols against its own binary. As soon as the binary changes, everything else gets rejected, and the system grinds to a halt.
Agreed, I think there are two things at play when (some) people say looks don't matter. 1) It's a holier-than-thou attitude where they are trying to come off as non-superficial like everyone else. And 2) They believe that there is some universal definition of beauty, which there is no such thing. But mainstream media would have us believe otherwise. Everyone finds who they are attracted to "beautiful."
Ted Chiang's story "Liking what you see" speculates about what it would be like if science messed with the other side of the equation. How would we relate to other people if we silenced the part or our brain that recognized physical beauty?
(shadysite transcript of story: http://www.ibooksonline.com/88/Text/liking.html)
Reminded me of "The Entire History of You" from Black Mirror[1] tv series (I really don't feel like calling it that way, it's more like a separate movies). I highly recommend it.
I wonder how long it takes before those lower(st) paid jobs for those that are not specialized in anything will be in something like mechanical turk. Especially in this example it's visible that those can sometimes require somewhat local workers, so they may spread outside countries with lowest cost of living.
I don't understand how their business model could scale, i.e. how they would be profitable, if indeed, they have real person(s) responding to multiple women (or users who've designated themselves as a woman :).
Let say 1 "real human" is responding to 10 women at the same time, the membership income from these 10 users (not accounting for software, hardware overheads even) = $25 / month X 10 paid users = $250.
If this "real human" is located in US, even taking a minimum wage of $10 / hour and assuming he/she works 160 hours a month ( 8 hours per day x 5 days a week x 4 weeks a month), the cost of having this "real person" on the payroll = $1,600 per month!
$250 - $1,600 = - $1,350. i.e. they would be losing over 1K per every few users if this is how they are doing it.
Unless, of course, the "real human person(s)" responding to multiple women are located in India / China and work for $1 a day or something like that.
Or maybe they are using Machine Learning or some sort of Artificial Intelligence, to come up with "Cute" Texts and responses based on the User's selected preferences and his/her past Texts to this "Invisible Boyfriend".
Only in the last case does it makes sense. But then, they'd be guilty of "false advertizing" if they claim that a "real human person" is at the other end responding...
You are off by a couple orders of magnitude on the number of people that a real human responds to. They get paid a few (Say, 5) cents for each text, so, to earn around $10/hour, they would need to send 200 texts/hour (which is pretty easy/trivial if you are doing this full time). Each package includes up to 100 texts/month, so, that is 1 real person per two customers/hour, or 16/day, or 320 customers/month per customer representative.
Looked at another way - one customer representative can support two customers/hour (in aggregate, obviously they don't send all their texts to one person in an hour). The customer representative gets paid $10/hour, the two customers pay $50/hour.
> they would need to send 200 texts/hour (which is pretty easy/trivial if you are doing this full time).
Context switching would take a while. You can't just reply with random phrases a-la Eliza[1] . In the article, the "boyfriend" responds to a specific question about Downton Abbey. Sure, in this instance the responder may be a fan of DA; but in the general case, it'll require more than 18 seconds (@200/hr) to just type up an intelligent, context-relevant response.
It turns out they watched Downton Abbey, in which case it's a 15 second response. If they hadn't watched Downton Abbey - also 15 second response.
And, from reading the script - it's apparently the case that the same CSA will get scheduled in for short periods of time with the same customer - able to maintain a thread, and presumably, all the CSAs have the thread available to respond.
> all the CSAs have the thread available to respond.
That's the catch: they have to read the full thread and then respond... in 18 seconds on average! That is a lot. I can barely read a decent-sized paragraph in 18 seconds; and the average typing speed of a professional is 50 - 80 wpm; which means even a 10-word response will take around 10 seconds to type. So you have 8 seconds left to grok the entire context and form a coherent response! And do this for hours at an end.
Yes - I concur that if there is a context switch - you'll run into some performance issues, good point. This suggests then that the system performs best when people are doing back-and-forth on a single thread.
The service is ran by CrowdSource, who uses Mechanical Turk to divvy out the task of responding to texts at a very small rate. So, it is a lot cheaper.
Depends on the definition of "signed up". 99% of them may have signed up for the free 10 text message trial. Without knowing the conversion from signup to paid, retention rates, and so on it could be either wildly profitable or losing money.
Understatement of the century here. That's 1.5MM USD in annual reoccurring revenue made in a day. Currently companies are being valuated at as much as 10x ARR. That's a 15MM USD company risen from the ground in 24 hours.
This makes for an interesting thought experiment, particularly when you compare and contrast it with the concept of the "waifu" (loosely, an animated character from Anime or videogames people associate as being their significant other).
One is a coping mechanism for handing external pressures, the other internal. I wonder how healthy either can be in the long run.
This article remembered me again that Psychology is something really interesting. No matter how strange all of this can appear to us looking from an outside view, this is how our brain works. If you know how psychology works you are able to create new business around of it. After reading it I wonder about how much, strange or not, psychology demands people have.
Basically virtual escorting as a service (not all escorting is sex, some of it is just companionship). For now there's no sex involved but with how easy it is to connect people nearby you could easily see this type of service expand in markets where it's legal.
I could see nude selfies being sent too down the road (again a different service, not exactly this one).
The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. ~ Ecclesiastes 1:9
OH YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!! I built something like this a long long time ago as a quirky project for my CS class at Columbia. When I pitched the idea to my buddies, they thought it was stupid and that my prof would have given me a shitty grade. So I scrapped it and submitted another project instead. I had 3 bots hooked up to the Facebook API on April 1st and it was so believable that my girlfriend thought I was cheating on her. One time she said "who the hell is this Rachel??" and would not let me leave the room until I told her who she was. I eventually confessed and she thought it was a hilarious idea. Too bad I got too busy with other shit that I put the project away on the side burner. Now I'm thinking about pulling it out again..........
That's where my new service, visibleboyfriend.io, comes in. We lease premium models, in both male and female forms, to accompany you to business meetings, family dinners, government functions et cetera. Our models have all been vetted as being 'significantly more attractive than anyone you could probably hope to date' by an independent council of data scientists and casting agency magnates. We also train our models to be conversant in various worldly topics, ranging from literature (Byron is especially popular these days) to art history to economics and politics. Email me for more details and to sign up for our beta: steve@visibleboyfriend.io
There is a similar appeal to conversing with a self-learning chatbot (thinkingai.com, etc). Not as consistent at times, but similarly intriguing how "easy" it is to trick you into believing you had a "real" relationship.
25 cents for a "culturally and emotionally attuned" response seems fairly reasonable to me. It comes out to something like 100 seconds per response just to match minimum US wage.
It's good for long messages. However, I could see someone go through the 100 SMS very quickly in a "conversation" where the imaginary person has to answer a bunch of short texts like "yes", "and you", etc.
I've tried the free trial, which is 10 SMS and went through them in half an hour or so (and that's because they don't reply very quickly). Haven't even got to the parts that I customized, I was still at "Hello there, how are you!", "Did you have a great day?" "Oh, and your?".
That's 4 SMS a day or so. At this point, I would simply use a chatbot, since they are fine with the basic conversations that I would manage to get to in 4 sms.
I guess you could have two 50 SMS conversations a month, but even then, good luck fooling someone into thinking this is your real lover.
The only plus I can see is that you can have someone tell you "Alright, if she is really your girlfriend, ask her something only your close friends know about you" and "she" would manage to answer.
'I could see someone go through the 100 SMS very quickly in a "conversation" where the imaginary person has to answer a bunch of short texts like "yes", "and you", etc.'
I could see someone go through the 100 SMS very quickly in a "conversation" where the imaginary person has to answer a bunch of short texts like "yes", "and you"
It's not meant to be a discussion service, but fake evidence that you've got a significant other.
Yes, of course. But the best way to fake evidence that you have a significant other is to build a SMS history. I send my (real) girlfriend 15 to 50 messages a day. I don't think I would fool anyone with an history of 100 messages a month.
> the service has also seen a surge in interest from people in conservative countries, particularly in South America and Europe, where the stigmas against being single or LGBT remain pretty strong.
Ryan, or Susan? I like that Ryan is a composite of many Turkers, but don't see why he should be played only by men. In fact I bet women would be better overall at text-flirting with other women.
Edit: before anyone questions it, I am not saying that in any derogatory manner. Just a similar concept in a way, though obviously this has very different value proposition.
>>“That rapport you feel with Ryan may actually be six or seven Ryans,” Homann explains.
Or Rhondas. Women know what women want from a fake boyfriend service. What subterfuge is needed to fool the parents, what parents expect, etc. The text exchange about Downton Abbey makes me suspect that their staff are, at least partly, female.
Women and men have distinctly different energies, even over text-based mediums. While this wouldn't necessarily stop them from doing this, it's not how I'd design the service.
It's inspiring but I have a question: People always think they can describe what they need (a perfect boyfriend?) But in fact not. "Perfect" things get boring very quickly, especially when you know it's designed.
Sentiments are real, I don't think anybody should play with other person feeling...
Of course the user signed up, and they think that this is what they want, but I honestly believe that nobody want to risk to fail in love for a nobody...
The concepts involved in the article are confusing attraction with love.
Independently of how arbitrary attraction and love are, there's certainly a difference between them, depth being the divider.
With this in mind, the "falling in love" the author is talking about, which may also apply to the crowds using such service, is the equivalent of a teenager "falling in love" with, say, Tom Cruise.
Although of course, services like this pose a "risk" of falling in such state, there's nothing really "wrong" (in the "damaging" sense of the term) with it.
People are different, maybe provide a little bit of attention to somebody that have never been loved can go a looong way in my humble opinion.
It is just extremely broad as argument.
I personally feel a lot of attraction to people just because the click well with my thoughts, but I know from experience that this is extremely dangerous and difficult to manage.
> "and they think that this is what they want, but I honestly believe that nobody want to risk to fail in love for a nobody..."
Wow, that's a whole lot of bullshit right there. That kind of thinking is why we have religion and politics. Men thinking they know what is best for everyone else.
It's not about forcing, it's the arrogance that you inherently think somehow know better than the people that want to consume the service. People who think like that are the people who vote like that and suggest that I change my behavior because they don't think I'm capable of making the assessment on my own. Kinda like what you just did with my language.
You can have any opinion you want, but the moment you put it out there, someone else gets to have an opinion about your opinion. My opinion can be that your opinion is dangerous, and "bullshit".
We would do far better in society if we actually believed in our fellow man, rather than thinking we knew better than them.
>It's the arrogance that you inherently think somehow know better than the people that want to consume the service
Hrm, well, yes, to an extent. However, People do do research on the psychology of human happiness and a bunch of other human charistics and we can answer some questions on what will be "best" in the longrun with quite a bit of certainty.
We also know that oftentimes people are just downright wrong about what will make them happy.
Example- we know spending your money on experiences rather than objects will make you happier in the long run.
If you want to read more about the topic I recommend the book "Stumbling on Happiness."
Sometimes we DO know that your choice is wrong for your goals.
Thats just in general, not particularly about this service.
Well, we really don't know any of that though. We know that spending money on experiences create lasting happiness for a statistically significant portion of the population which is a larger number of people than those that derive more lasting joy from spending on purchases. And even that is self reported.
I don't see the field you're referring to, but I'll try to answer with a best guess anyway.
Most web spam bots fall into two categories:
1. They target a certain web software package (such as WordPress), for which they know the HTML layout and the range of possible CAPTCHA challenges.
2. They try to fill out every HTML form they find blindly, using heuristics based on the names of form input elements.
To defeat both, all you need to do is to write a custom HTML form by hand (which defeats category 1), and add a simple CAPTCHA challenge (which defeats category 2).
Thanks. But that challenge is so trivial to defeat by simple pattern matching with zero cost that the cost of adding code to a bot to break this type of challenge seems negligible.
PS: it's a the bottom of the landing page (not signup)
I will say, that as much as Myers-Briggs exploits the Forer Effect, that I did notice a few trends, e.g. that I cannot stand folks in one particular group (and no doubt they cannot stand me, either!). And it did seem fairly good at distinguishing extroverts from introverts (assuming arguendo that such a distinction is meaningful).
Most personality classifications have some bases and some value, but this particular exercise really turned me off.
I'm ok with saying "this is an attempt at classification, it's an extra data point", but I'm not ok with resorting to scammy techniques, if anything it tells me that the classification can't stand on its own and has therefore very little value.
Probably he meant an actual "partner", meaning tricking yourself on purpose to a certain degree.
Even if you are talking to multiple people you could imagine keeping tracks of your key facts and interests, maybe use data mining from actual conversations to auto-suggest answers, automatically check out your social medias etc.
Reading the article would have provided you with a real-world use case:
> Homann says the service has also seen a surge in interest from people in conservative countries, particularly in South America and Europe, where the stigmas against being single or LGBT remain pretty strong.
It is very very sad but I can imagine that in some place it may be worth spending a few bucks a month to be able to show conservatives co-workers/parents/whatever that you have a regular boyfriend (for girls) or girlfriend (for guys), and live your private life as you wish.
Laziness? If you just enter a relationship just for the sake of having a relationship thats not fair to the other person involved. (Source: been the "other person.")
A proper relationship needs effort. Even if all the feelings are involved. The hurdle to start one is especially high, you have to go out there, open yourself up and prepare to get hurt. Now, of course you can say this is a very cold and unromantic way to look at it. It is, yes, but I'm not on HN to romanticise. I'm sorry to hear what happened to you.
Duh. Everyone knows relationships take time effort and sacrifice to be successful.
The point is this service is being marketed for those who don't wish to be in a relationship for whatever reason but want to give the appearance of being in one to others. Perhaps they are semi closeted or asexual or don't have the time to devote to a significant other or simply just don't want to give up their autonomy yet (or ever).
If someone starts a relationship for the wrong reason - because they only want to be in a relationship, not because they are in love with the other person - it is not fair. The other person doesn't matter, anyone will do, feelings won't there. That isn't very nice to the other party and just leads to hurt.
This happens all the time. All the time. Especially with marriages.
Not everyone wants to be in a relationship (for whatever reason) and that is fine. That also isn't a very socially acceptable choice. This service is marketing to that segment.
all I see is a fear (of being alone, whatever might be the reason) and weakness (to face reality, to stand to annoying people around etc.).
You wanna be alone? So be, and be proud of it, no small lies all around you. Or way more realistically, you wanna partner? Well get the hell out of your stupid phone and meet real people. It ain't easy, but nothing really important in life is...
I find it sad that she needs an invisible boyfriend ... her friends and family shouldn't be pressuring her and if she's got someone harassing her, will showing him a text really stop it?
Both these scenarios assume she's happy without a BF but the fact that she describes feeling that she might have fallen in love could also mean she actually wants a boyfriend but can't find one. Things are tougher on women these days (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/02/sex_i...).
It's sad there are people for which having an invisible boyfriend/girlfriend is an appealing idea (which is the entire premise of the service), regardless if it's the case with the writer of the article.
"On its Web site, Invisible Boyfriend calls itself “believable social proof”: When your mom won’t stop asking you when you’re going to settle down, or your weird male acquaintance keeps hitting on you, you can just whip out your phone and show them evidence that you’re not an unlovable loser, thank you very much. Homann says the service has also seen a surge in interest from people in conservative countries, particularly in South America and Europe, where the stigmas against being single or LGBT remain pretty strong."
I find the whole premise depressing.
Be proud of what you are or, if you are unhappy with your situation, take meaningful action to address the problem.
I may be projecting, but I don't interpret Kurtz as saying it's sad that people want an invisible boyfriend. More that it's sad that people feel pressured to have some sort of boyfriend, and get an invisible one to relieve that.
If someone genuinely thinks "actually, an invisible boyfriend would be better than a real one for me", then great, more power to them. But if someone's getting an invisible boyfriend because they can't get a real one, or because their parents are pressuring them, or because they don't want to come out as a lesbian. It's good that invisible boyfriends exist for these people¹, but it's sad that they need to exist.
¹This is debatable in the long run and the big picture. But here and now, it removes a little pain from the world.
"Being sad" means exactly that, and does not imply having disdain, disrespect or not accepting someone.
I'm just saying that whatever problems these persons have with their lives, I cannot see how this service can be of help in any way.
If anything, the problem is with society and social pressure: by conforming to it, and not fight it, you'll end up exacerbating the cause of the problem.
Yes, it will absolutely help the individual while doing nothing to solve the problem (and arguably perpetuating it).
I had a teacher in high-school who was black, and in the first integrated class at a formerly all white school. He said his parents made him do it, he hated it, and he got less of an education than had he been at an all black school because of the controversy surrounding the situation.
Clearly, while it's a good thing in the long-run that the schools were integrated, there is a price to pay for those who take part in the transition.
I wonder how OK it is in their relationship to say things like that. That's obviously a joke, but it still comes quite bitter when such phrases are then revealed to general public.
Well, imagine if the gender roles were reversed then. "Haha, you're so much better/funnier/sexier than my gf" would be a disaster to a woman, especially if I spent my day flirting with this fake girl. The hypothetical real girlfriend taking offense at this is 100% understandable. Go ahead and post to /r/askwomen if they think it would be hilarious if their boyfriends and husbands flirted with a fake woman 24/7 and compared her to them. I suspect you won't be getting this libertine and ultra-thick skinned response out of them.
To a guy on the receiving end, its "buck up, pussy" which seems unfair. Men's feelings deserve validation too. Shamefully, the gender dual standard continues even to the younger ultra-liberal crowd who dominate HN.
I'm a liberal but probably not the demographic you think.
Compare if the situation was reversed for the following phrase: "Oh, you're so much more dependable than my actual gf." Or "Oh, you're so much funnier than my actual girlfriend". Men would get far more offended than women. Why is that? Why aren't there as many female comedians?
I think that biologically, women value the intimacy and sexual appeal that their mate seeks in them, and are jealous/threatened when he seeks it in others. While men value the respect and sexual availability that their mate gives to them, and are jealous/threatened when she gives it to others. It ultimately goes back to the very real difference that women can have less children simultaneously than men, and therefore men are the first to be sacrificed for the good of the group and polygamy was a very natural state for men who were the ones who risked and died in wars and other adventures to provide for their tribes.
Justifying dual standards with questionable evolutionary psychology, frankly, is just not convincing.
If I found my wife flirting with other men online, be it via a "fake" service - whatever that may mean, its a serious violation of my trust and damages our relationship on a significant level. I don't care what hamfisted biological theories you toss out, its hurtful and disloyal. We're not all Sheldon Cooper.
>adventures to provide for their tribes.
I don't live in a tribal society and I suspect neither do you. I can't have 10 wives or 20 mistresses nor challenge people to honor duels. In fact, the state demands I'm non-violent, have only one wife, and society puts a great deal of pressure on us to stay monogamous. We have next to nothing in common with cavemen and the tribes of old.
I live in a modern society and play by its rules, that includes taking monogamy seriously in my marriage. My wife doesn't get the luxury of being immune from this because she's a woman and my feelings towards monogamy aren't invalidated because I'm a man.
I think people cling to these theories in the hope they could explain every facet of human behavior. There's no Grand Unifying Theory of Relationships, period.
Certain people may act a certain way, but if you're choosing a mate, you don't want just anybody. Life isn't a popularity contest; you're not trying to capture the imagination of a random person. People mature at different rates, and have different value systems. These forces check our base impulses, and shape us into someone who is more than just the product of our own petty desires.
Worse, reductionism often carries with it an implicit acquiescence to terrible behavior.
I hear what you are saying, but we're not all the same. Women typically are attracted guys taller and stronger than them. Men typically find themselves attracted to women who are thinner and weaker than them. And like you, I don't find it particularly convincing that a culture of forced monogamy is more beneficial to individuals or even the society at large. You mentioned the state, which leads me to believe you might be receptive to considering the plight of the individual. The way you described it, it almost sounds like you are bitter that society has forced you into behaviors that you would not naturally choose yourself, and now you want yourself and your wife to conform to those behaviors because you both owe it each other.
What if it was shown that your mutual happiness would be greatly improved by recognizing that the two of you have different priorities derive your happiness in diff ways and get jealous of different things? It's all well and good to put down different theories, but you also base your life on a theory. A theory of complete equality. After all, if you look at society at large, they don't exactly conform to this standard of monogamy that you put forth as the most moral. In fact, people cheat and lie quite immorally in order to get around it, and do it secretly. Is that really much better? Why is the state coersion morally better? What is your overall point?
If the gender roles were reversed, and the guy was a journalist writing a piece about his invisible girlfriend, then being offended by that joke would be equally ridiculous.
It's the same reason why horoscopes and fortune cookies work. Stepping back and thinking logically, it's easy to see why their messages might apply to a lot of people. But when you're reading one, you can't help but think, "Ah! It says that I would encounter adversity at work this week, but overcome it! I knew that presentation wasn't the end of the world." And if you're a little lonely or down and need emotional rapport, you can't help but feel a little spark of excitement and connection when that Mechanical Turker claims to like your favorite TV show - especially because the text messages from the fake partner look just like they would from a real one.
No matter how deeply we trust our logical conclusions, our emotional response remains the same. We can't help but feel worthier when we're being praised (even by computers - see the Silicon Sycophants study: http://pdf.aminer.org/000/307/350/information_requirements_a...), hurt when we're being insulted, and connected when we're being connected with.