>>17364 >a subjective experience is called qualia i dont think you understand what dennett is saying, however i can not fault you because most people don't. actually for a long time, i just thought he was just speaking nonsense till i heard an illusionist explain their position. needless to say, the whole "qualia doesn't exist" shtick is very misleading. what they mean is that they have problems with at least one of the following statements in this very specific list of ideas about it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Definitions): 1. ineffable – they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any means other than direct experience. 2. intrinsic – they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things. 3. private – all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible. 4. directly or immediately apprehensible by consciousness – to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale. note that this definition is not even accepted by all non-materialists. there are even plenty of idealists (such as hegel, and likely the british idealists) who do not accept (2) because they think all qualities are relational. for hegelians, qualia like redness are concrete universals... why is this important? because since people like dennett don't agree with this definition, they want to throw the whole concept away >'give her the d' this is a weird example. please explain what you meant >because that knowledge(subjective experience ie. qualia) doesnt exist there are some materialists who actually say that this knowledge does exist, but they bring up the ability hypothesis (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/#NoPropKnow1AbilHypo). i do think there is some truth to this idea, but i feel as though they lack the proper metaphysics to understand why >you cant just redefine words idk why you think this. it is a very common thing people do in conceptual analysis. if our concepts are bad, we probably need to define new words or use old words in new ways. an example of this is with continuity. mathematicians have defined the concept of continuity around open sets and limits. bergson meanwhile believed that such a definition is unable to properly capture temporal continuity. this lead him to give a new definition of it. in the process of doing this, he also ended up using the term "duration" in a different way as a contrasting term between his theory of time, and the physicist's understanding of time based on abstract mathematical continuity. this is fine as long as people are explicit about using their terms in a different way

>>17365 >like an aristotilean a hylomorphist to be more precise. of course aristotle is more about there being an immaterial intellect and stuff

>>17080 okay. time to summarize chapter 2. honestly it is a much faster read than chapter 1, but it relies more on technical details that a a simple summary would betray. part of the reason it took me time was because of meditating on some of these details (as all of this is going to be basically the foundations of the rest of the book, it makes sense to spend extra time on it), but it is also because i have just been procrastinating/distracted from other things... anyways here is a basic summary of some key points to take from this chapter: 1) negarestani suggests a basic framework for approaching AGI which he calls the AS-AI-TP framework. keep in mind that his model of AI is capable of discursive interaction with other agents. this is stratified between different levels. >(i) the first level is just basic speech. such a thing is crucial since we need to interact with other agents somehow >(ii) the second level is dealing with the intersubjective aspect of speech involved in conversation. i personally suspect that grammar might emerge at this stage >(iii) the final level involves context-sensitive reasoning, and reaching higher levels of semantic complexity (i am guessing what he is hinting at here is functional integration) one thing i am unsure of is whether stage 2 and stage 3 can actually be thought as separate stages, because it seems like what we see in stage 3 could naturally emerge from stage 2. such an emergence clearly wouldn't happen with stage 2 from stage 1... the framework by its names also separates out three different projects that are important for these three stages: >(i) AS which corresponds to the construction of artificial speech synthesis. this one is special because it largely only concerns stage one >(ii) AI which corresponds to the project of artificial intelligence >(iii) TP which corresponds to the the project of finding the general conditions for the possibility of a general intelligence. negarestani of course sees kant's transcendental psychology as the beginning of such a project 2) he makes an extensive criticism of the methodological foundations of the disconnection thesis. this is basically this idea that future intelligence could diverge so far from our own that we might not even be able to recognize it as intelligent. among other problems he has with this view, i think the most important one to extract is that if such an entity has truly diverged so far from our own intelligence, it is a mystery why we should even consider it intelligent. because of this, negarestani wants to stress the importance of certain necessary functions being implemented by a system (what he calls functional mirroring) over the structural divergences that might occur... this functional mirroring partly arises when we have a determinate conception of how geist's self-transformations should take place generally 3) by bringing up functional mirroring, we bring up the question of what conditions are absolutely necessary for us to call something sapient. negarestani terms soft parochialism the mistake of reifying certain contingent features of an intelligence into necessary ones. the purpose of transcendental psychology is to purify our understanding of general intelligence so that we only include the features that we absolutely need 4) he writes a basic list of the transcendental structures. i already described them here: >>11465... negarestani also remarks that transcendental structures can also be used to articulate ways in which more complex faculties can be developed (i believe he gropes a little to how in his discussion on chu spaces) 5) based on all of this, negarestani also motivates that we construct a toy model of AGI which he frames as a proper outside view of ourselves. a toy model has a twofold utility. first, it provides something which is simple enough for tinkering. second, it makes explicit meta-theoretical assumptions. this latter point is important because sometimes we might be imposing certain subjective self-valuations of our experiences unto our attempts at describing that capacities we objectively have. the construction of a toy model helps avoid this problem

>>17439 7) negarestani outlines two languages for the formalization of his toy model. the first is chu spaces which are basically a language for concurrent computation. he links an interesting article ( https://www.newdualism.org/papers/V.Pratt/ratmech.pdf ) which relates concurrent computation to the mind-body problem. it does this by basically framing mind body dualism as a duality instead. the scheme is as follows: events correspond the activities of bodies, while states correspond to mental states. the function of events is to progress a system forward, while the function of a mental state is to keep tabs on previous events. the key idea for pratt is that the interaction between event and state is actually simpler than event-event or state-state interactions. 'a⫤x' basically means that event 'a' impressed on mental state 'x'. meanwhile, 'x⊨a' means that with the mental state 'x' the mind can infer 'a'... transitions from event to event or state to state are much more complicated. they require the rules of left and right residuation. the basic idea of these is that for us to transition from state x to state y, we need to make sure that from y we are able to infer all the same events that have occurred previously as state x. these residuation rules seem to be important for making sure that there is proper concurrency in the progression of states... negarestani also seems to be hinting at the idea that with the help of chu transforms we can see how chu spaces may accommodate additional chu spaces in order to model more complex forms of interaction... the benefits of chu spaces: (i) provides a framework that accommodates the kantian distinction between "sensings" (which he corresponds to causal relations) and "thinkings" (which he corresponds to norms) (ii) since state-event, event-event, and state-state interactions are all treated as different forms of computation, we are able to be more fine-grained in our analysis of the general form of thinking beyond just calling it something like "pattern-recognition" or "information processing" (iii) in doing what was just mentioned, we also avoid shallow functionalism (iv) allow us to model behaviours as concurrent interactions the second language he wants to use is that of virtual machine functionalism (you can read about it here: https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/sloman-chrisley-jcs03.pdf ). the basic idea here is to talk introduce into our understanding of mind virtual machines. these basically correspond to levels of description that are beyond that of physics. VMF is distinguished from a view called atomic functionalism in that the latter just treats the mind as this simple input-output machine. meanwhile, in VMF, we can talk about various interlocking virtual machines that operate at different functional hierarchies... the differentiation between different scales and descriptive levels is really the main benefit of this approach. it allows us to avoid an ontology that is either purely top-down or bottom-up. i think this is actually a really important point. another important point here is that by looking at the interaction between different scales we are able to describe important processes such as the extraction of perceptual invariants... VMF seems immediately fruitful to some of the AGI modelling concerns... Chu spaces less so, though i have reasons to still return to this idea with a closer look

>>17440 >VMF seems immediately fruitful to some of the AGI modelling concerns... Chu spaces less so, though i have reasons to still return to this idea with a closer look Chu spaces also seem interesting. I hadn't heard of them before, but they seem like a good way to represent objects in spaces. For example, objects in some input image can be represented by a Chu space. So to look for an object is in some image, instead of calculating p(object | image) for each location, you would transform the image into K and check K(object, location). I guess the benefit is that everything about a Chu space can be represented by a single function, K, which gives you a unified way to handle a lot of different kinds of structures and the interactions between them. I think most observations can be treated as an object in a space (e.g., when you're observing the color of a shirt, you're looking at a shirt in a colorspace), so it seems very general. Chu spaces also seem closely related to tensors, so I would guess that there's an easy path to a lot of numerical machinery for anything written as a Chu space.

>just dropping this here for us, since neither seem to be present ITT yet? https://functionalcs.github.io/curriculum/ https://teachyourselfcs.com/ https://www.mooc.fi/en/ (pozz-warning, but much good stuff as well)

So I think the time has finally come at last. I hope for the fortitude of soul to finally pursue maths. As a repeat High School dropout they kept putting me back in anyway lol, I absolutely loathed (and do even moreso today) the modern public """education""" systems. So I felt at the time my decisions were well-merited. Heh. So, fast-forward to today and I barely know how to add 2+2 haha. :^) Missing out on the basics of algebra, trig, geometry, pre-calc, calc, stats, etc., is proving a big hindrance to my progress today for us with robowaifus. Even though I'm now an adult man, I think I can still pick it up. The challenge is making the time to study on top of my already-overflowing plate, and the AFK pressures of keeping body & soul connected together. >tl;dr I'm starting with Euler's, wish me luck Anons! > >P.S. Feel free to pester me once a year -- say, during Summers -- to know how this little project is going. Sharp pointy-sticks can be a good thing after all. :^)

>>16302 I know that feel. I also dropped out and ended up math illiterate. I feel like the only useful subjects in school were Phys. Ed. and Math. Even the ones that sound useful on paper like Philosophy weren't useful, at least as far as what school taught of them goes. A system that wastes entire childhoods has got to be the most evil idea ever.

>>16302 I know it hasn't been a year yet, but how's it going? >Elements of Algebra If you can start without knowing the basics of algebra and end up understanding that book, then you have some serious potential. A lot of higher mathematics mostly requires a ton of tenacity and creativity trying to understand what people much further ahead than you are trying to explain. Usually our education system doesn't force students to go through that unless they've chosen to get a degree in mathematics. Elements of Algebra looks like it was written in the same tradition. It reads like it's meant for highly educated and highly dedicated people, just ones that haven't studied much math. If you get stuck, don't feel like it's cheating to look up other material or ask for help. The goal is not to get through the material on your own. The goal is to develop the right intuition so that the language of math becomes second nature, and all is fair in that pursuit. Do bang your head against some problems until you figure them out, because it's good to prevent yourself from getting lazy about exercising your brain, but don't do it for every single problem you encounter, since that will slow you down too much.

>>7666 It can be a long term thing, like a great life work or magnum opus Some of the goals can be realized before others and then eventually (it being modular) it might get finalized

>>7667 >like a great life work or magnum opus You. I like you Anon. I wouldn't personally be doing this at all if I didn't consider it a great achievement when we all succeed together at this. I would that more young men in our increasingly-corrupted Western Civilization could find something worthy of a life's-pursuit. Godspeed to /robowaifu/ during this approaching Christmas season. >=== -minor prose edit

>>246 I wouldn't care as long as she is cute and her AI doesn't take over the world

>>1137 I have a doll that I never warm up. It's TPE and as long as it's powdered well it feels so good to get into bed with a cold soft doll on a hot summer night. The only downside is the rubbery medical smell never went away. I've showered it dozens of times now and it still smells like medical grade TPE. I would rather have a cold hard plastic like PVC and have even considered getting her a PVC catsuit to wear to bed. On cold winter nights it's not as satisfying but I still appreciate the feel of it even though it feels nothing like real skin. In many ways it feels a lot better than a woman.

>>7678 >I wouldn't care as long as she is cute and her AI doesn't take over the world hard disagree on the take over the world part take the Dr. W pill

BTW, OpenWRT violates the shit of all the licenses and gets into 0 trouble for it. Go to the OpenWRT repositories right now and download any package, it's just a .tar.gz tarball with a different extesion. Look into the contents of the package: there is no license text anywhere. A lot of FLOSS licenses require that the license text be distributed with binary, but OpenWRT simply doesn't do it. I approve. OpenBSD does almost the same thing, they very rarely distribute the loicense, so they're violating the license of most of their packages with such a term.

>>16352 >I use ISC. This is in essence just what OpenBSD advocates today. https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=HEAD

>>16352 >related https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC

>discussion-related > (>>16429, >>16431, >>16526, >>16538, >>16549, >>16551)

I use CC-BY-NC-SA for everything. This allows people to use it freely in the same manner as GPL non-commercially but requires people to ask permission to use it commercially. You can always grant copyright to people outside of the license terms by releasing your work under a different license to specific people. The use of dual licenses allows you to forbid certain individuals and/or entities from using your work as you see fit on a case by case basis while not inhibiting anyone from merely contributing to your project.

I don't think anyone has completed an GF AI "package". Training a dataset is something on the burner for a few of us but we need a massive amount of GPUs or funding for that right now. In the meanwhile you can play with ReplikaAI, which isn't the worst if you just want a chatbot, it's GPT driven (I think) but loaded with scripts and pre scripted "activities" which you can opt out of if you want. There is a paywall beyond which the AI will be your "GF" or mentor or whatever else you want, but tbh it just adds more scripts. You can probably get more or less the same outcome using silly roleplay asterisks * * Sorry for your life situation, I wouldn't call it hopeless - it's just a factor of the times we live in. Finding a hobby or creating better life habits will improve yourself and give you more confidence and maybe pull more respect from women. But speaking from experience the "juice isn't worth the squeeze" more often than not.

Try SimWaifu/AIML

>>16765 These are rather problems to think about from a software perspective, not some exotic hard or wetware. If we go deeper into that question, we should do that in the AI thread or so.

>>16768 >This being said, a biological brain would provide such by default. Not necessarily, I doubt insects have emotions or a theory of mind. Now it would probably be easier to give a biocomputer a theory of mind and emotions because mycelium, geobacter, and animal neurons are all much more similar to the human brain than silicon transistors.

>>16770 This is as much a hardware question as it is a software question. Today's computers are not good at parallel processing and emotions require many parallel processes at once. Biological computers excel at parallel computing.

The dude that made the rate flight simulator has his own website. https://potterlab.gatech.edu

Biocomputers might start looking really attractive if supply chains keep getting disrupted or if Taiwan is invaded.

oh hey wait, let me give an example of at least giving even a single source for word usage. plenty of people use "prove" in the context of truth tables. so as you can see, my language use is not even that idiosyncratic actually a common thing people do in logic is to prove basic tautologies using truth tables as it is impossible to demonstrate them without any pre-established inference rules (e.g. here: https://web.mit.edu/neboat/Public/6.042/proofs.pdf)

>>17355 >the fuck do you mean source >im not fucking using it any differently than what it literally fucking means The normal meaning is it's a binary operator on booleans. Nothing more. >occurrence of R AND Y is additive ie. independent occurrence >concurrence of R AND Y is multiplicative ie. simultaneous occurrence >same TRUTH different RELATION If there are different relations for the same truth then the relations are redundant. >independent occurrence >simultaneous occurrence There is nothing in logical conjunction about time or concurrence. If you interpret relations as saying more than what is true about them you are wrong. If you want extra structure you can specify R and Y. Again, give a source for what you mean by conjunction. This isn't logic this is something else. Also define "=". Give an actual parser for eval(). What is the grammar of this system? Probably no point though.

>>17363 >The normal meaning is it's a binary operator on booleans. Nothing more. yes this is what conjunction means, this is what it ALWAYS means. do you still need a source for when i fucking say conjunction i should have separated them, i wasnt saying TRUTH = VALUE i was saying the same TRUTH for X has different VALUES based on the HOW they occur which is what the evaluation is for, eval() is a function of a simultaneous occurrence which is still logically AND but NUMERICALLY multiplicative, im using numbers not truth values , if it isnt true it doesnt get evaluated how stupid are you >What is the grammar of this system its purely functional as is already obvious to anyone with above room temperature iq eg. eval( eval( k,r), eval(e,y) ) + eval( w,y) is something that is simultaneously k,r,e,y and occurs with something that is w,y this is a SPECIFIC situation which is why i wrote it logically with AND to show how it works as a SYSTEM for something more complex than trivial statements and doesnt rely on a specific statement to be hard coded which is what i wrote in the original post weeks ago eg. people on fire =eval(people,fire) people on fire and screaming =eval(eval(people,fire), screaming) people on fire screaming and jumping up and down while others are laughing =eval(eval(eval(people,fire), screaming),jumping) + eval(people, laughing) pretend this evaluates to something like -683 a movie with people on fire screaming and jumping up and down while others are laughing

>>17368 >i was saying the same TRUTH for X has different VALUES based on the HOW they occur you mean you meant to say that (assuming you aren't being disingenuous right now), because you literally didn't say that anywhere >yes this is what conjunction means >still logically AND but NUMERICALLY multiplicative, im using numbers not truth values if it is NUMERICALLY multiplicative, then it is a binary operator on integers, not booleans. in other words, new semantics. good work! also >still no source for those wondering the reason why. hmm let's see when we search up "additive conjunction": https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-linear/ hmm... so it refers to a completely different logic that is neither classical nor intuitionistic (of course with a different semantics which they call game semantics). oh and it has 4 "truth" values cool... let's see what else, uhh the multiplicative conjunction does not solely take "numerical" (it is just for tab-checking on resources) values, and hmm... oh yeah, the deduction rules are completely different too. it has some applications to programming, but needless to say they have nothing to do with what this guy is saying. wow so to summarize: your criticisms of my tiny point were all demonstrably wrong (you even falsely stated that 2 pairs of propositions were not contradictory, after calling me a clown for proving something in a way that hurt your fee fees), you don't use terms in ways anyone else does (but words have meaning right? ;)), and your examples have been consistent in not actually giving what i asked for. thanks for your time

oh yeah, and the final thing. his refined system is still just half thought garbage and i merely gave up on explaining why. whatever. if anyone want's to have an understanding of my point that hasn't been hidden under nonsense please see the following posts: >>17238 >>17308 i also suggest you guys check out walid saba's work on natural language understanding: https://medium.com/@ontologik https://medium.com/ontologik/a-solution-to-the-so-called-paradox-of-the-ravens-defdf1ff9b13

>>17190 >The prices for the bldc motors on the mentioned site are 25$(US). If that's too expensive for the little robot you want to build, then you might have the wrong target group in mind. This. We have to accept that robot waifus are gonna cost easily over 3000 dollars. Just a sex doll cost between 1200-1600 dollars and we need them to be able to move around. I think sex dolls could be a good base for a robot waifu.

>>17264 i mentioned it in another thread but if you design it like a marionette then its potentially the cheapest alternative, you could theoretically only need a single motor, all you really need is an autistic watchmaker to design the coupling mechanism for combinations of movements, like in my example moving both parts with just one motor without individually having to move them, it would couple 2 & 3 give 60kn of force to 3 which would go 30/30 to each then decouple 2 from 3 and give another 30kn, its trivial to extend this to extend to any number of combinations if you can handle having a complicated design then all you need is fishing wire and some gears, in theory at least, would be cool to have something powered by a small diesel engine like in those model planes

>>17280 >i mentioned it in another thread but if you design it like a marionette then its potentially the cheapest alternative, you could theoretically only need a single motor, all you really need is an autistic watchmaker to design the coupling mechanism for combinations of movements That's actually a really smart idea. I think I have an idea on how to construct one but I'll need some time to try and prototype it. I think I'll need to get a 3d printer as well since not all parts I need can be bought off-the-shelf. Due to the high precision needed I'll need to get a resin printer to do it. Which isn't too much of an inconvenience since I've always wanted to be able to print table top miniatures.

>>17291 Please draw it for us first. An illustration will help others both understand your idea and, help you develop it into a functional mechanism.

>>17280 Not sure how this would work with one motor. Are you meaning to imply the use of a mechanical analog to the old drums that automato used to program their actions? Those worked by having cams going up and down grooves on a drum and actuating different parts of the body based on the movements of the cams. Some more advanced automatons would move the drum to alter the behavioral output.

just one more post until its moved i think i figured out the lifting problem, its actually really simple, you would just increase the baseline tension and lift a little until you see the object lift ( which is the force needed to actually lift it), subtracting this from the starting tension would literally just be the weight of the object, with this you can calculate a new table to move with the object

>>17171 Yeah, it's very interesting. Sounds like one would imagine the tensegrity in the human body. That's probably how we should think about any kind of muscle type actuator, or of the motor is not in the joint but somewhere else while the joint is controlled through wires.

>>17151 Still looking for good ways to design squishy or flexible parts. It will most likely be open cylinders which thinner and thicker parts. I have to order them in a way that this can be printed without support material.

>>17195 So, unfortunately, finding a way to design a model for some kind of flexible tissue that can ne FDM printed turned out harder than I thought. However, I think I'm on the right track now. I'll certainly need to do more test prints. I probably won't go with the idea of 'shooting' holes into a design from all sides, but build up a design. It's certainly still ways to go and the approach might fail. We'll see.

>>17195 I would like to talk to you more about this. I might have an application for your 3D printed "metamaterial". One concern, among a few, is the brittleness of the medium: how much compression can it take before it "cracks"? Are these able to tolerate significant levels of deformity?

>>17053 >tsundere All the different animu-tropes encompass a quite broad swath of patterns of behavior and emotional/situational contexts, AFAICT. I think with enough time and diligent attention/care, these can probably be encapsulated into software systems controlling a robowaifu's physical systems sufficiently-well to mimic these tropes to a satisfying degree. I suppose this could be seen as 'hard-coding' these behaviors, Anon? However, the complexity involved in such an endeavor wouldn't be trivial even in the single example case you gave--much less the entire complement of all the well-known ones. This will be a challenge to pull off well for sure. >>17055 >I see the future of a mass produced robowaifu to be a generic cheery hard coded personality, of course these are low end with little customization and other things of that nature. I imagine you're correct Anon. Seems the safest bet & least expensive one for a small robowaifu manufacturer tbh. >>17061 >Might be more palatable all around if the personalities were tuned to "young adult" and our training on them upon ownership would be more akin to finishing or graduate school. That's an interesting take on the developmental arc of a robowaifu. I personally would find the experience of watching a robowaifu go through the full transition that Chii did in the story of her 'new-beginning life' with Hideki, fascinating & highly appealing. OTOH, I also understand why that might be repellent to some anons for a 'real waifu' vs. a 'headpat waifu'. >=== -add 2 add'l replies ITT -minor fmt, grmr, prose edit

personality-wise she would simply be the exact copy of my favorite j-pop idol.

I've been thinking recently about how to organize and describe personas. While text generation AI is capable of working with unstructured text, AI in general seems to work better when the data is given some sensible structure for the task at hand. Even if a good structure isn't directly necessary for text generation, it's useful for understanding exactly what sorts of things can go wrong and what sorts of data you need to provide to get results you want. I ended up settling on 8 questions that seem to be good for getting a very comprehensive understanding of people: 1. What are they receptive to? 2. What kinds of thoughts do they have? 3. What kinds of goals do they set for themselves? 4. What do they believe? 5. What roles do they take on in life and in interactions? 6. What do they have strong emotions about? 7. How do they act on their emotions? 8. How do they believe things should work? I think questions like these can be useful for being very specific about what an AI gets right or wrong about a persona. It might even be possible to collect data on each of these 8 aspects. On thinking about what the most useful first steps would be for creating AI with a personality, any initial steps towards data collection seems like a great step forward. I don't know exactly how the data collection would work, but maybe there's a way to use natural language processing to extract candidate answers to these questions from fanfictions, show transcriptions, community discussions, and so on. It'd be really cool if that would let us create some sort of "persona dataset" for classifying and generating personas. From what I understand, it's not too difficult for an ML researcher to integrate basically any dataset into a text generation model. If anyone else has a different set of questions, it's be great to see that. (The download link in >>12299 seems to be broken.) Anything that helps us be more specific and more comprehensive about what exactly constitutes a persona seems worthwhile, especially since there seems to be so little academic work on the topic.

>>17248 Thanks, I had a similar idea, I guess. I was mainly thinking about personas in regards to limit the stored data on persons she knows. The robowaifu mind would have a concept of different personas and then forget details about persons she met over time, but keep them categorized as a certain type of person, or within a range of close types. This might of course also help from the start. Having a guess which kind of person someone is, and then adapting her behavior accordingly. >Anything that helps us be more specific and more comprehensive about what exactly constitutes a persona seems worthwhile Try not to overplan things. It just needs to be a framework which can be extended. It should of course also include race, gender, political tendencies, heritage and nationality, religion, etc. I'm sure we can find an article on Facebook and advertisers where they list what kinds of factors they care about, then some psychological classifications, sociological mileus, ... From there we can weed out the more important factors.

>>17257 >Try not to overplan things. It just needs to be a framework which can be extended. Part of this is just me trying to figure out my own thoughts on the topic. I think part of it is also that we have different use cases in mind. I'm thinking more of a one-on-one chatbot, where things like race, politics, heritage, nationality, and religion don't play a big role, at least not for me. Do these play a big role in one-on-one discussions for other people? >I'm sure we can find an article on Facebook and advertisers where they list what kinds of factors they care about Keep in mind that they'll deliberately avoid using or suggesting some important things for legal and reputation reasons. Some big ones not on your list include age, parental status, income, occupation, and education. The search term for this is "demographics". When it comes to creating lists like this, I find GPTs to be very useful. I gave https://20b.eleuther.ai/ this input: >Best demographics for targetting a message: >- Gender >- Politics >- Cultural background >- Religion >- Age >- Parental status >- Income