Believe it or not AI results are doing fine, which is why people use it.
Yes they will produce some funny/tragic results that are both memeable and newsworthy, but by and large they do what they are asked.
If the results were poor you wouldn't have adoption and your AI problem is solved.
We have had chat bots since the late 90s. No one used them for therapy.
For some people, paying with their data is a lot cheaper than paying for therapy or religion. I do not fault them for this, especially if they are getting similar results.
Why? Is it somehow better to go to an actual church or pay someone to confide in?
People using technology to fill a need on the company's funds is not the worst thing in the world.
It's a balance between immersion and world building and tedium.
In silksong the run backs never seen so far that it is tedious. The save point is not right next to the boss fights but for the most part they aren't egariously far. Plus the save points serve as rest spots for the multiple paths you take. A save point at every boss would be detrimental imo.
That's just a casino.
Degenerates would just add the biggest items to their cart and gamble for the chance at 'free' money
Question for you - what do you think produces the profit for IGN? Is it the quality of their content or just their branding?
Are they too big to fail? That no matter what content they put out it will continue to produce the same profit regardless of how good it is?
Do you believe that a contractor at lower salary and benefits armed with AI will be able to handle the 2-3x workload that current employees are doing at comparable competency?
Do you believe that IGN will also be backfill all these positions that suddenly opened up and provide training without suffering a noticeable dip in productivity?
If you believe all that then sure, these employees have little to no power. Let's see if IGN shares this sentiment and, if they do, let's see if it works out for them.
Not OP and mocking fascists is AOK in my book. But to OPs point it is quite an ignorant way to do it and would backfire.
Like this is clearly a filtered photo vs an unfiltered photo. If you showed this to a neutral or someone on the right and said, "haha see how MTG ruins her husband", you would be giving them ammo to discredit you in future conversations because they know for a fact you are being dishonest here.
While your objectives are admirable, I can't say I agree with the mindset.
You keep using that term that you're "saving" these people. But what you're really doing is trying to control these individuals by removing their options and removing their agency. You just don't believe they can make their own choices or that their choice is ever really their own. Teenagers who already have a solid grasp of what OF is, then has up to 6 extra years or more of exposure and experience to the content creation sphere and then decide it is what they want to try? I'm not overly concerned about that.
We don't have the "time" to save these individuals of today, but most of them don't need your saving. Realistically you are talking about the subset of these individuals that are being exploited or forced into this against their will. But there is no magic button to exterminate exploitation completely. (Not saying people should not try) We are better served shaping the world in a way where those who choose to go into nontraditional work are not stigmatized or facing social consequences.
No one is suggesting a passive approach to fixing society. Getting involved locally. Voting. Protesting. These things are not passive. And yes we do have time. Who knows this conversation could agree very badly for one of us but history has shown life does on. Society does tend to grow more progressively even if growth is slow. But you know what? Growth and progress, by and large is not measured by the number of OF models we're "saving".
To your first and last point, I ask you this: do you believe the Patriarchal world we live in today is the same as the Patriarchal world from 100 years ago? 50 years ago? Even 25 years ago. I don't believe so and that is due to the incremental progress we made.
Could it be better if we just tore it all down and installed some new system we don't know about yet and have not agreed upon? Maybe. And it could also be much much worse. We have no way of knowing so while you are concerned about the end being near, you also correctly surmised there is no better known solution.
And yes I believe many enter as a way to make ends meet and not thinking they are going to be the next viral Model. So either they are delusional/unaware/see no other option.
And you realize this is not what the study is showing right? The study says that the teenagers have a "sophisticated" understanding of how OF works.
And yes I believe many enter as a way to make ends meet and not thinking they are going to be the next viral Model.
I mentioned this already but this does not square with your understanding that OF for most people do not pay enough to make ends meet. You can't say there is a sizable number if OF models making a living and also acknowledge that point the top .5% or so actually make real money from the platform.
So for the vast majority of OF models, they would try it, find out it does not work for them, and exit. Their identity is mostly drowned out by the sheer numbers that exist. Is there still possible societal consequences should they get outed? Yes. BUT i argue that is more reason to change societal views through acceptance rather than promote existing Patriarchal standards in stopping them.
You ask a lot of questions regarding the data you neither have nor can correlate to "oppression". You're kind of just throwing it out there and saying it is.
One last point - the article says (emphasis by me)
"While some teens exposed discomfort with the sexual content associated with OnlyFans, others framed participation as a rational economic decision, especially for girls who might not pursue traditional education or employment
So the teens think it's a viable economic plan for those who already were but planning to pursue traditional education or employment.
While it would obviously be better if those who are in this nontraditional bucket had even more options, i would prefer not to limit them more than they are already limited.
(Humanity has had some pretty low points recently but that was definitely after some highs. And as much as we would like it to be a straight shot up to utopia progress is generally more bumpy than that and it's what makes achievements more satisfying. People probably felt the end of the world during WW2 but look how many highs came after)
I'm not following. People may prefer cheap to expensive but that does not mean they are desperate.
The option isn't just cheap or expensive therapy. No therapy is as much an option if the therapy quality was 90s level machine chat bot.
Why is it exactly a problem that people have an extra avenue to better mental well being?