I think this discussion could have benefited from a broader framing, which understands how the capitalization of intimacy is changing. The elephant is obviously the cultural stigma associated with sex-work, and to pretend that it's just a regular "job" makes the discussion more difficult. As the most lucrative business models are in the capitalization of attention, there is now a natural incentive for enterprise to subsume or cross over into the capitalization of intimacy.
Modern platforms like Only Fans allow a more seamless transition where attention and intimacy exist on the same spectrum. Also, these platforms empower the individual to more directly benefit from their services, making traditional exploitative networks increasingly obsolete.
I think comparing direct human interaction with the capabilities of AI misses the point. There is no direct substitute for the visceral connection of real human intimacy. The essential point is that there is now a spectrum where human agents and AI agents can exist on the same spectrum, and products existing on this spectrum will increasingly become a venture for enterprise efforts. This is coupled to the fact that modern society breeds isolation and artificial bonds, and as intimacy becomes more scarce, it necessarily becomes more valuable (thereby increasing the capitalistic incentives). And as every malady to the human condition in modern society is addressed with the appropriate service, a sex-worker may become but another service worker. Is this desirable? A beautiful women can then plainly profit from all aspects of her born beauty, and I wonder is this desirable? Or, maybe AI levels the playing field such that born beauty is more easily compensated for and thereby less valuable? Maybe, through AI, the innate appearance won't matter at all, except to those that offer the premium of in-person services? Either way, these premium, in-person network effects can never scale in the way other aspects of a person's network can and will seem to remain a small subset of the market. Curiously, may it be that in this way the stigma is removed because the majority of sex-work will become truly democratized and therefore no longer the stigma of a regularly identifiable group? Or, maybe the stigma will just shift to whoever these people are?
Thank you for the feedback! I think you pose a lot of good, thorny questions. Going into this conversation, I wasn't entirely sure what the framing *ought* to have been - while I may resemble an expert on AI, I'm far from an expert on sex work and the capitalization of intimacy. I don't intend to close the door entirely on this topic though - hopefully future conversations can offer more insights and possibly some answers.
I think this discussion could have benefited from a broader framing, which understands how the capitalization of intimacy is changing. The elephant is obviously the cultural stigma associated with sex-work, and to pretend that it's just a regular "job" makes the discussion more difficult. As the most lucrative business models are in the capitalization of attention, there is now a natural incentive for enterprise to subsume or cross over into the capitalization of intimacy.
Modern platforms like Only Fans allow a more seamless transition where attention and intimacy exist on the same spectrum. Also, these platforms empower the individual to more directly benefit from their services, making traditional exploitative networks increasingly obsolete.
I think comparing direct human interaction with the capabilities of AI misses the point. There is no direct substitute for the visceral connection of real human intimacy. The essential point is that there is now a spectrum where human agents and AI agents can exist on the same spectrum, and products existing on this spectrum will increasingly become a venture for enterprise efforts. This is coupled to the fact that modern society breeds isolation and artificial bonds, and as intimacy becomes more scarce, it necessarily becomes more valuable (thereby increasing the capitalistic incentives). And as every malady to the human condition in modern society is addressed with the appropriate service, a sex-worker may become but another service worker. Is this desirable? A beautiful women can then plainly profit from all aspects of her born beauty, and I wonder is this desirable? Or, maybe AI levels the playing field such that born beauty is more easily compensated for and thereby less valuable? Maybe, through AI, the innate appearance won't matter at all, except to those that offer the premium of in-person services? Either way, these premium, in-person network effects can never scale in the way other aspects of a person's network can and will seem to remain a small subset of the market. Curiously, may it be that in this way the stigma is removed because the majority of sex-work will become truly democratized and therefore no longer the stigma of a regularly identifiable group? Or, maybe the stigma will just shift to whoever these people are?
Thank you for the feedback! I think you pose a lot of good, thorny questions. Going into this conversation, I wasn't entirely sure what the framing *ought* to have been - while I may resemble an expert on AI, I'm far from an expert on sex work and the capitalization of intimacy. I don't intend to close the door entirely on this topic though - hopefully future conversations can offer more insights and possibly some answers.