30% of children who use chatbots consider them "friends."

[ArMaP]

I happens more often with people with only one child.

You can be an only child but always have people around you, so I suppose in those cases there's no need for imaginary friends, real people fill that position.

[andy06shake]

You can be an only child but always have people around you, so I suppose in those cases there's no need for imaginary friends, real people fill that position.

You can indeed.

But I think other children are the main ingredient.

Kids crave company, and if they cannot get it, they will create their own of the imaginary sort.

It's just part of their cognitive and emotional development.

[Oldcarpy2]

You can indeed.

But I think other children are the main ingredient.

Kids crave company, and if they cannot get it, they will create their own of the imaginary sort.

It's just part of their cognitive and emotional development.

I never had an imaginary friend.  Just Cats.

[Maxmars]

I have no misgivings about the imagination of my children, and given some assumptions about people generally, it seems we are searching for an explanation about something very akin to faith in innocence.

"Chat bots" however charming, are not organic... they are programmatically driven to 'serve' a purpose, to 'fill' a 'perceived' vacancy on human interaction... making the role fill a void that for children, is always there.

That void, that 'need' the users believe is satisfied and filled, is often just as imaginary as the 'friend.'

It isn't youthful immersion in a theoretical (make-believe) relationship that represents what isn't natural for a human child... it's the 'algorithmically' contrived path a randomized machine may take... there is no love, wisdom, or human thought behind selecting statistically appropriate verbiage... according to grammar and 'normalized' responses available in 'training data.'

I'm sorry to say, I think chat bots should be "rated" like movies... PG13, R, X....   but that won't happen... it interferes with the true purpose of programming and launching the program in the first place.

Chat bots don't exist to serve the users.... they exist to "use" the 'information' we can't help but share at every turn.

As for "child development" or "entertainment" for children... as with all things 'children,' they require most often  - thoughtful adult supervision.

[andy06shake]

Chat bots don't exist to serve the users.... they exist to "use" the 'information' we can't help but share at every turn.

This is also very true, and if something is free, it's because you are the product.

[ArMaP]

Chat bots don't exist to serve the users.... they exist to "use" the 'information' we can't help but share at every turn.

I always delete my conversations with AI bots and deny use of my data.

I know they can ignore it, but that's a risk that could cost them a lot of money.

[Maxmars]

I always delete my conversations with AI bots and deny use of my data.

I know they can ignore it, but that's a risk that could cost them a lot of money.

Since I am just a commenting observer... I came up with a question I can't determine who could answer it...

If a user "opts out" of sharing data... does the functionality of the program change?

It's rhetorical... I don't think anyone would admit that they do that, yet I suspect it's probably built in to the output... but maybe I'm just distrustful of the people applying the tech for their own benefit...

[ArMaP]

If a user "opts out" of sharing data... does the functionality of the program change?

It's rhetorical... I don't think anyone would admit that they do that, yet I suspect it's probably built in to the output... but maybe I'm just distrustful of the people applying the tech for their own benefit...

I have been using two systems, Google's Gemini and Microsoft's Co-pilot.
You don't need to create an account to use them, but some features are disabled in Gemini (no image uploads, for example) and limited in Co-pilot (it only allows two or three images).

I haven't used both logged in and not logged in, and I don't see a difference, besides the fact that, logged in, you can see your previous conversations (if you don't delete them).

[Maxmars]

I have been using two systems, Google's Gemini and Microsoft's Co-pilot.
You don't need to create an account to use them, but some features are disabled in Gemini (no image uploads, for example) and limited in Co-pilot (it only allows two or three images).

I haven't used both logged in and not logged in, and I don't see a difference, besides the fact that, logged in, you can see your previous conversations (if you don't delete them).

Thanks.  I wasn't referring to the features of the interface though... I mean 'does membership matter' to the algorithms calculating the output?

I suppose it doesn't... or maybe only assume it shouldn't. 

[ArMaP]

Thanks.  I wasn't referring to the features of the interface though... I mean 'does membership matter' to the algorithms calculating the output?

I doubt it, too much work and not enough reward.
They gain more by limiting the resources used by the free versions.