Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

army1987 comments on Interpersonal Entanglement - Less Wrong

44 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 January 2009 06:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (160)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 February 2012 06:23:08PM *  2 points [-]

He said, "Well, then I'd just modify my brain not to get bored -"


AAAAIIIIIIEEEEEEEEE meaning ‘if you're willing to do that why don't you just wirehead yourself?’, right?

But seriously, I can't see why someone would prefer catgirls to real women if they don't also prefer prostitutes to girlfriends. So I'd just have asked him, “Why aren't you spending all of your disposable income on prostitutes, then?”

Comment author: MBlume 19 February 2012 06:57:22PM 5 points [-]

Catgirls would probably display more interest than the median prostitute?

Comment author: [deleted] 19 February 2012 07:17:38PM 0 points [-]

That post was specifically about non-sentient catgirls. (Sure, you said “display” not “feel”, but under some sufficiently strong version of the anti-zombie principle it's impossible to convincingly do the former without the latter.)

Comment author: pedanterrific 19 February 2012 07:27:57PM 1 point [-]

Animals can't feel interest?

Comment author: [deleted] 19 February 2012 07:41:50PM *  1 point [-]

(I'm assuming you mean ‘non-human animals’.) It depends on what you mean by feel and by interest, I guess. And BTW non-sentient is a stronger condition than non-sapient -- according to some definitions, even insects are sentient.

Comment author: pedanterrific 19 February 2012 08:10:43PM 1 point [-]

Where "nonsentient romantic/sex partner" is pretty much what I use the word "catgirl" to indicate, in futuristic discourse. The notion of creating sentient beings to staff a volcano lair, gets us into a whole 'nother class of objections.

The link makes it clear that "nonsentient" is being used to mean "not-a-person", not 'incapable of feeling even as much as an insect'.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 February 2012 08:48:45PM *  1 point [-]

Thanks. (I was thinking about an improved version of the inflatable doll, now I'm thinking of the verðandi in Failed Utopia #4-2 but with much-less-than-human intelligence, say that of a domestic dog. I can see why some men would prefer that to a prostitute -- but I suspect that many of those who don't have sex with prostitutes now but say that they would enjoy catgirls after the singularity do so because of differences between near- and far-mode thinking.)

Comment author: ikrase 14 September 2012 03:20:55AM 1 point [-]

I personally find particularly unintelligent women pretty unattractive even when thinking in terms of short-term relationships based mostly in sex.

The Verthandi in Failed Utopia seem not even vaguely catgirllike: I think that the genie there just created two entire races.

Important thing: Most of my really big romantic fantasies involve either being really powerful and meeting a lover with high but unrealized potential and raising her to my level, or consist of meeting a powerful lover and her raising me to her to my level. This seems rather at variance with catgirls.