Science We’ll have ‘virtual’ babies within 50 years, AI expert predicts - They want to replace your own fleah and blood with a soulless NPC

Archive

If you thought the Tamagotchi Generation was a 1990s phenomenon, think again.

In the not-so-distant future, those looking to expand their families may opt to do so with the help of artificial intelligence.

The average American child costs parents more than $230,000 by the time they reach the age of 17, according to the US Department of Agriculture.
A digital kid, on the other hand, could have all its needs met for less than $25 per month — that’s just about $5,100 by the time they reach high school graduation — according to the UK’s leading artificial intelligence expert.
Amid poverty, disease epidemics, climate change and overcrowding, experts worry that the estimated 11 billion people that will populate Earth by 2100 won’t get the food, health care and other essential resources they need for survival. And that’s a real concern for would-be parents, according to a 2020 YouGov poll that found nearly 10% of adults have already chosen to remain childless for these reasons, while another 10% cited the financial impact of having kids.

“Based on studies into why couples choose to remain childless, I think it would be reasonable to expect as many as 20% of people choosing to have an AR [augmented reality] baby over a real one,” said Catriona Campbell, a former technology adviser for the British government and a British Interactive Media Association Digital Hall of Fame inductee.

This “game-changing” outlook “could help us solve some of today’s most pressing issues,” she said.

“Virtual children,” some experts believe, could supplant real ones — becoming commonplace by the early-2070s, Campbell told South West News Service. By combining computer-generated imagery with machines that can learn as humans do, virtual children that look like real ones would be able to recognize and respond to their parents, and simulate real emotional responses as kids do.

“Virtual children may seem like a giant leap from where we are now, but within 50 years technology will have advanced to such an extent that babies which exist in the metaverse are indistinct from those in the real world,” added Campbell, whose new book, “AI by Design: A Plan For Living With Artificial Intelligence,” is out this week.

The technology would be made possible with advances in artificial intelligence and augmented reality technology, including “touch-sensitive” gloves to help parents actually feel their children, and glasses to envision them in our real environment.

Campbell has dubbed this vision of the future family the Tamagotchi Generation — in a reference to the keychain toy of the ’90s made up of a tiny digital pet that owners were required to “feed, “play with” and even “medicate” on a regular basis. But in an advanced virtual reality setting, lifelike kids could grow and mature in realtime, and without putting stress on the natural environment and resources — the first truly eco-friendly kids.

“This will lead to the first, fully digital demographic which, although somewhat strange on first appearance, in fact represents what could be one of mankind’s most important technological breakthroughs since the advent of the Bronze Age given its potential impact on global populations and societal change,” she said.

The technologist also suggested that parental satisfaction could be even higher with virtual children — with more control over how their digital spawn is designed. Their lifespan could be preprogrammed, and exist in real time, or allow parents to “activate” them at their convenience, as children on-demand.
 
Amid poverty, disease epidemics, climate change and overcrowding, experts worry that the estimated 11 billion people that will populate Earth by 2100 won’t get the food, health care and other essential resources they need for survival.
Where are you going to get sufficiently green energy for your digital child? If your child goes into stasis during a rolling blackout, can you sue?
 
Where are you going to get sufficiently green energy for your digital child? If your child goes into stasis during a rolling blackout, can you sue?
That just gave me some horrific visions of a cyberpunk dystopia with distraught "virtual parents" desperately trying to generate electricity on a pedal bike generator to keep their "virtual child" alive.

Also I'm sure those "virtual children" will totally take care of those adults when they're old.
 
Obviously stupid and evil. I can think of one person who could really use this technology in my life, though. A mentally retarded woman in my extended family is absolutely obsessed with babies, and is actually pretty great with babies generally (though I wouldn't leave them unsupervised with her longer than a few minutes because I don't trust her judgment in an emergency). She has paramaternal bonds with her stuffed animals and they're like the babies she can never have, and it's achingly sad to see a woman whose maternal instincts are still just as highly attuned as any woman's, totally unable to exercise those instincts. Something like this would become her whole world and I don't know if it'd be more or less sad than the way she gets about her stuffed animals.
 
I never understand these 250k to raise a kid figures. Are these children in unicorn fur nappies, sipping on the milk of artisanal angels?
Basically. Jew Caplan wrote a book arguing people (and I agree) dramatically overpay on kids because they prioritize giving them lots of material goods over lots of siblings to play with.
 
I never understand these 250k to raise a kid figures. Are these children in unicorn fur nappies, sipping on the milk of artisanal angels?
USDA.gov in 2017
Based on the most recent data from the Consumer Expenditures Survey, in 2015, a family will spend approximately $12,980 annually per child in a middle-income ($59,200-$107,400), two-child, married-couple family. Middle-income, married-couple parents of a child born in 2015 may expect to spend $233,610 ($284,570 if projected inflation costs are factored in*) for food, shelter, and other necessities to raise a child through age 17. This does not include the cost of a college education.

Where does the money go? For a middle-income family, housing accounts for the largest share at 29% of total child-rearing costs. Food is second at 18%, and child care/education (for those with the expense) is third at 16%. Expenses vary depending on the age of the child.
They're including the price differential of moving from a pod in the city to a proper human home, I guess. (And they place that as about $70k).

They may not include college, but later down they also count buying a car and car insurance.

Realizing that the feds acknowledge the $13k/year estimate makes it even funnier that kids are only worth like 3k in stimbux.
 
“Virtual children may seem like a giant leap from where we are now, but within 50 years technology will have advanced to such an extent that babies which exist in the metaverse are indistinct from those in the real world,”

Yeah, except the litte difference that real world children, well, exist.

"Expert" future predictions are hundreds of years old, and so far they have been monumentally wrong in almost all cases.
 
Live in the pod. Eat the bugs. Fuck the Metaverse waifu. Have digital children. :suffering:

image - 2022-06-02T114535.737.png
 
The average American child costs parents more than $230,000 by the time they reach the age of 17, according to the US Department of Agriculture.
A digital kid, on the other hand, could have all its needs met for less than $25 per month — that’s just about $5,100

Holy shit. Having kids shouldn't be viewed like a business decision you absolute mongs.
 
Yeah, I'm going to listen to someone with a psychology degree and nothing else about what tech looks like in 50 years.
Great AI expert.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
I'm now imagining sick individuals abusing virtual babies because you know they would do that if they could. Also, since this is like Tamagotchi, can the baby die if you are an irresponsible parent?

Either way, the only people that would actually use this as anything more than a brief novelty are either sad cat ladies or the before mentioned sick individuals.
 
AI Expert needs to watch less Sword Art Online
dotHack did AI children better.

Virtual kids? Not gonna happen. Democrats can't sniff them, touch them, or sacrifice them to their heathen gods.
But they can reprogram them to rat on their parents for not Pokémon going to the polls.

Holy shit. Having kids shouldn't be viewed like a business decision you absolute mongs.
Well, they historically kind of were one, when they were "free employees" and the ones to carry on the trade.

But something tells me that the people who would want a digital child are the people who scoff at the idea of having Timmy do child labor at the local bakery and maybe it's easier for Timmy to do Imperial math than Metric when all he has to do is scale a recipe.

I'm now imagining sick individuals abusing virtual babies because you know they would do that if they could. Also, since this is like Tamagotchi, can the baby die if you are an irresponsible parent?
We would compare this to The Sims instead of Tamagotchi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Badungus Kabungus
Back