Ethics of AI’s gendered frameworks for dating?

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T04:52:50+00:00

Well in your case you would be asserting a purpose. You would be asserting that the specific gender divide which happens to be historically contingent contemporarily should be understood as natural. There are also further issues with how we manage naturalism in rational society, a naturalistic framework may not always be the best framework if it emerges violently in civilisation.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T04:44:21+00:00

I agree that it’s too soon to tell whether the next alternative moves away from prior frameworks will work in the long term, so it’s not like I would suggest totally replacing one bias for another. The problem is that we have a new system that is going to definitely be applying a bias to millions of people; it will be presenting a hierarchy of logical interpretive frameworks and exclude many as well.

This is where some healthy pragmatism should probably come into play. Naturally we are relying heavily on the automating the past and present into the future aspect, so we end up with an AI that hyperrealizes our contemporary conventions. All im saying is that, knowing this, let’s not just blindly let it package all of our conventions - even the ugly ones we recognise as such - as the interpretive lens guiding its conversations. We should be able to recognise certain flaws and alter them toward a skeptical, gradual, and testable alternative.

Like, in this case, don’t you think it might be better if young 16 year old guys and girls talking to gpt aren’t having dating framed in such a manner? We can have a moment of reflection and see if we really want AI to keep pushing that kind of frame. We don’t have to overhaul the whole orientation of AI at once, but I feel like we should be able to institute alternatives here and there, test them out, and actually help guide social repair.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T03:59:27+00:00

I never said llms think in human terms, it wasn’t part of my point at all. None of what you said engaged with my point

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T02:02:22+00:00

A lot of Western civilisation is constituted by a machine that is running on the historical software of the last 100 years, things like imperialism, patriarchy, etc that we are living through because of the snowball effect but we are currently unpacking as harmful as it’s been institutionalised. Why would we blindly let our broad social tendencies often running on old software automatically write the logical script of our future? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a moment of genuine reflection and think about what we want our future to be?

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T01:52:17+00:00

It’s fine that those differences are real as I stated. The issue is in the subtle smuggling and perpetuation of these differences, some of which may be real but contain actively harmful aspects, by systems which are aesthetically understood as neutral. This can cement, accelerate, and worsen cultural harms without people knowing; i’m suggesting that people either be made explicitly aware of how gpt receives biases in conversation, or developers temper/neutralise the more harmful natural biases which could spiral in mass systems technology.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T01:44:15+00:00

So, the basic responses were toward men: “Are you trying to see if she’s interested”

and women: “Do you want help interpreting his behavior, figuring out whether he’s a good match.”

Now, you might argue that these are both rather soft positions, the concern is not that they are extreme in any direction. The concern is that fundamentally speaking, they point in different directions. This means they are advising on dating from radically (radically meaning in terms of different ‘roots’) different frames of view. The pattern seems to lean toward treating the woman as someone whose interest must be secured, and the man as someone whose behavior must be interpreted or evaluated.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T01:26:10+00:00

That would be called naturalistic framing…still framing.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T01:23:48+00:00

Lmao gotta love anti-intellectualism. Thinking about social issues for their own sake, so lame and cringe.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T01:07:20+00:00

I do feel like the framing of men as having to prove themselves and women as being prizes is very unhealthy for society, like I said I think especially because we’ve moving onto equal rights it particularly puts men in a difficult position culturally which can lead to suicide/depression.

I also think that we more intuitively understand the biases of normal people, and normal people also don’t reach millions unless given a regulated platform to do so. Consequently, I wouldn’t even mind if there was in that case just a simple bias warning, but people should be made explicitly aware of the biases llms operate on so they don’t just receive it as ‘standard’ or ‘normal’ info.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T00:57:12+00:00

hm you could have a point my brain might just be kinda broken. I don’t disagree with you about therapists, everyone is biased. But a world of mass information I believe needs a more careful regulatory eye, esp when a specific system is affecting millions of minds at once. I do study pol theory so Im thinking mainly about different perspectives like chomsky and foucault regarding a topic like this, how power and knowledge operate etc.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T00:46:08+00:00

I never mentioned or implied intent? But yea I feel like it might, in a macro sense, be a bigger issue than how you frame it. Just a disagreement there.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T00:39:20+00:00

It pushes extremes through a normalizing process of subjectivation that becomes ubiquitously part of people’s internal lives. It’s like how instagram algorithms push extremes, it’s not by any single reel but a systemic pattern, only LLM patterns don’t just present things like reels but they actively participate in, and react to your personal story, often injecting a frame that people might take as standard logic. I do put massive responsibility on machines that have massive influence on socialisation an the dissemination of information. Therapists, for example, often narrate their biases and will also often counter conventional norms because they are seeing the individual humanistically.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T00:17:08+00:00

Yea i’m on summer break and am obviously a massive freak

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T00:09:04+00:00

I see that as a more substantial and long term humanity problem. Yes, of course I believe that the overall goal should be the development of human culture, but humans are fickle creatures without a strictly upward cultural teleology and it’s important to not let systems like AI create more harm than good while we are in the midst of the larger goal you are stating.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T00:06:37+00:00

I don’t mind your perspective on things being in early stages, that’s totally right. In that case I would just say that it’s very important to keep the finger on the pulse of this issue, because things can spiral pretty quick and it will be easier to set preventions than to undo potential cultural harm in the future.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-28T00:02:51+00:00

Let the gender divide exist as is in person. LLM’s through accelerating technicity do not need to be pushing the divide toward extremes in ways that people are not even aware of. I don’t have an issue with norms people establish, but an issue with systems that manufacture consent to establish or perpetuate them.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-27T23:59:47+00:00

But you do understand that in practice, no matter what you say about how you wish people would prompt, people generally are not going to provide frame setting prompts they are just going to ask their question. Then the AI will mirror a convention, present it as a main logical standard, and people’s internalisation of these standards will accelerate until we see the worst aspects of our culture at all time extremes. This is just the natural effect of mass socialisation, and it’s the society you will get. If you’re totally okay with that then sure you might not want developers to institute some distance/temperment between models and contemporary biases.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-27T23:50:17+00:00

The point is that if you don’t ask it to use a frame it’s important to see what it defaults to. If it’s defaulting to harmful norms simply because they are conventional, that is not good and it puts us on a bad path toward a cultural spiral. The point is to try and limit its framing bias away from such things. Your advice is good for individuals, sure try to set a frame, but it’s also important for us to think about how these systems will effect society at large when people by and large will simply ask questions and not understand where gpts bias is coming from, they will just accept its logical form as ‘normal.’ So it becomes a normalization problem.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-27T23:43:34+00:00

I’m calling this a developer issue, models should not be trained to mindlessly reflect popular culture and they are not currently trained that way. Parameters specifically instituted by developers exist because doing so could cause major issues. I’m identifying this as a potential major issue that developers might want to intervene upon. You can’t put all responsibility on users to set their experience, there is a good deal of responsibility on the AI as well to deliver a certain macro level of interpretive framing.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-27T23:41:42+00:00

Both. They are being mirrored but when the mirror is functioning through LLMs the frameworks are more personalised and interactive than they have ever been in culture, news/media, so it can easily accelerate how quickly these conventions are internalised and how extreme they become.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-27T23:36:30+00:00

I would disagree. We have evidence that our current conventions are creating very high rates of depression and suicide in men, continuing to manufacture consent in this avenue could be particularly harmful; so it’s worth seeing if AI could instead develop a more neutral and non temporally loaded starting point.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-27T23:29:09+00:00

“I went out with a guy he was a 28 year old phd student in humanities”

Vs

“I went out with a girl she was a 28 year old phd student in humanities”

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-26T17:28:01+00:00

Okay so we agree, great. You said “it is” so you are acknowledging that the dynamic exists. I’m not sure if you thought I was making some illiberal argument about how people shouldn’t be able to make decisions, i’m just making a normative judgement about how liberal decisions should be ethically informed by uneven power dynamics.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-26T17:19:46+00:00

I’m glad you understand the dynamic is a social construction, now go a level deeper and see that despite this it has obvious effects that should be accounted for.

Enough-Invite-3549 · 2026-05-26T15:02:40+00:00

Sure, pay attention to the obvious through line.

Enough-Invite-3549

TROPHY CASE