Just completely disagree. If there is a song you like, it is a normal thing to start sharing it with someone. If they hate it, turn it off. Exactly what I did.
> People don't force (potential) romantic partners to do things they don't want to do anymore.
Offering up poetry--that can be accepted or denied (and denied in the case of Anna)--is not "forcing" anyone to do anything. She was uninterested, fine, but that is part of the problem. Why does no one care about literature, poetry, and music that brings us more in touch with ourselves? She had her way--by going back to the bedroom--is that the world we want to live in? Or do we want to go deeper?
> Consent is important not just in sex
There are certain times that someone may not want to do something. For example, I have a friend who did not want to go to therapy, but he eventually went because his girlfriend cared about it. Offering literature, poetry, therapy, etc to another person is not violating their rights, it is trying to show them a world they maybe unfamiliar with and that may benefit them. We cannot end up in a society where if a person immediately does not have a taste for a certain "activity" we concede immediately under the guise of "consent."
> Match, eHarmony, and the like are more tuned to "real" (i.e., long-term) relationships, and Tinder... isn't.
Two points here:
[1] There are 75 million people using Tinder each month (https://earthweb.com/tinder-statistics/#:~:text=6.44%20milli...), which is a significant amount of the population and it has an impact on culture.
[2] These applications can encourage romance as it can exist outside of the first meeting, though: I would lose out on an opportunity to develop bravery (again, this is my experience) and these apps do not encourage beautiful first-time encounters with another person; I believe Match has the same swiping mechanism based on dimensions. None of them, to my understanding, try to replicate all of the emotions--fear, vulnerability, sensitivity--that in-person interactions demand. Those felt experiences are part of what create romance.
> It is far more likely to be learned behavior from culture, media, and just regular social dynamics.
Agreed that I should do more research here. I can't prove for certain this is the case. Thanks for the feedback. Though I do not think it is cultural: the fear exists in every country I've ever visited.
> Real relationships are rarely being formed through Tinder.
> This person really read a poem to his fling? That reads so bizarre. The fact that the person thought he "would be taller" when they first met up was already a red flag.
It's funny (to many other people) because of how ridiculous it is. Go on a Tinder date, go back, hook up, and then go through the Wasteland and she couldn't be less interested. It's also a clear example of where we are at as a culture: sex, alienation, not a care in the world for substance.
> Doing something as strange as that in 2023 on top of it...
What happened in 2023? No one reads poems anymore?
> emulate some form of artistic writing style for effect
No, this is just how I write...
> it is an argument from emotion
It is my personal experience.
> that is a hell of a claim, and the author treats it as completely self-evident.
The next two sentences clarify why I make this claim: "Courage enables us to uphold other virtues, and it is the defining factor of potential: much of the difference between what your life is and what it could be comes down to your valor in trying moments." Sure, there isn't a "data-based approach here," but maybe you can catch my drift...?
> neither is going out to the bar/club/etc looking for a one night stand
Agree with this. I could have expanded on it more, but I wanted to limit the piece to dating apps.
> none of those apps were optimizing for romance anyway
This is the problem: everyone uses them; they take away romance; culture without romance no good.
> The passage particularly about his date not appreciating his oration of T.S. Eliot's Wasteland is particularly, and forgive the term, cringey.
I think it's great for two reasons: (1) It's funny because of how ridiculous it is. Go on a Tinder date, go back, hook up, and then go through the Wasteland and she couldn't be less interested. (2) It's as clear an example as you can get of where we are at as a culture: sex, alienation, not a care in the world for substance.
> It reads awfully judgemental.
It is.
> Maybe she doesn't like Eliot, maybe he read poorly, etc...
Lol, no.
> All I'm saying is this article really seems to do Anna dirty.
It is not about "Anna" specifically. The example is about a general pattern.
Perhaps. I think the general public would lose interest if they knew that a great work of art (i.e. the David, or the Sistine Chapel, or an emotional novel) came from a computer. I think HOW something is made is part of what makes it evocative.
But I agree with you about unconscious media being the status-quo.
It's the same as thinking about if one day you wake up and realize that your dog is not conscious. I, for one, would feel that something was lost. We want writers and painters and conscious beings on the other side of these pieces that give us meaning. If we find out that they weren't there at all, if when an author says: 'I was sick to my stomach,' it was a lie, then that art would lose value. At least in my eyes.
And, ethically, artists should disclose whether or not they used these technologies.
It's semantics, but I take your point. I'm trying to give a new definition of art that you disagree with, and by that definition nature would be beautiful but not art. I could be wrong.
I agree that AI will create breath-taking images, though I'm not sure how far that will go. Would we care about the David if it was made by a robot? Would we appreciate Tender is the Night if Fitzgerald wasn't giving his human perspective? Personally, I wouldn't; not for more than a moment.
On the last point: I would prefer to pay artists creating beautiful works by hand instead of via machine. So it does matter from my perspective. I would like to know who is who.