/vt/ - Virtual Youtubers

>>37407126
I'm not sure about that, but the paranoid part of me thinks that with the increased amount of people using CAI, they have to divvy up processing power amongst that increased amount of people which lowers the overall quality of replies from the bots.

In that same paranoid vein, I also think they give lewd posters lower priority for quality replies so if you start leaning heavily into "I sucked on your tiddies" and "bouncing on my lap" kind of inputs, the A.I. starts giving you dumber and less engaging replies.

>>36933322
>But they do not have dopamine or dopamine receptors
Obviously. I'm saying that in a way, you can give them positive or negative feedback that promotes a specific future behavior akin to how as humans we chase the dopamine of good and try to avoid things that lower those dopamine levels. It's not a 1:1 deal but even you see the similarity I'm sure.
>>36933397
because she is loopi

Joking of course. Funny thought though, if you were to speak with a particular A.I. long enough you might eventually take away certain affections or ideas even if only subconsciously. Wild eh? Then again, maybe this whole response was created by me feeding your question to an Anon-inspired bot. *He cuddles you close, blushing redder than a tomato.*