Agency is an illusion. You don't generate your thinking, it just happens. I don't know why you believe that agency of the maker is needed for something to be enjoyable.

We could also say that the makers are the builders of the IA, and that they put effort in building it.

Every person decides what to do with their saved time. Some people may want to use a ready made game, others may prefer to write a story or alter the script of the game. The ones who play a ready made game may express their creativity in areas not related to gaming.

You are judging people for not doing what you think they should do. As if your role was to be their social engineer.

You may analyze why do people seek such a thing and feel compassion. and what should humans do instead? Why? Is there an objective answer?

If you are disgusted by this, the resources spent on AI adult content would make you mad. But why judge what other people choose to do.

There's an episode of President Curtis where USA is running out of energy and the final solution is to (spoilers) tax AI porn.

I'm gonna recommend an author I never saw over here and that I found interesting.

Peter Kingsley. He's an academic who studied classical Greek philosophers and what he calls "the origins of western civilization" and he's also a mystic.

While reading him sometimes I think he may be mad, and at other times I think that his explanations make a lot of sense. His central idea (or what I got from him) is that at the origin of western civilization and its fundamentals there were mystics, not intellectuals. He includes among these mystics Parmenides and Empedocles. Then intellectuals gained popularity and took control of the discourse and diminished and ridiculed the real role of Parmenides and Empedocles and their teachings.

As a starting point, his shortest book "In the dark places of wisdom" is a very good introduction of his ideas and would allow a reader to know if he wants to read more or not. As a second book I think that "Reality" is a good choice.

Consider that the URSS and Cuba were about redistributing wealth and it didn't end well there.

And yes, those were simply my motives, I also would like everyone to be happy and capable of attending to their basic needs in the world.

What I also believe is that reducing poverty is a much better goal than redistributing wealth. Redistributing wealth can be a valid strategy for reducing poverty.

Do you believe that the same government people that is influenced by lobbying is going to vote to close the ways in which corporations give them money to control their decisions? How could that happen?

> No one has to pretend, they can just prove it. That's not tyranny, it's reason.

Tyrants believe that they know what's reasonable for the people to do with their lives, and as is often there case a lot of people don't agree with them, so then they use force to coerce people to do what they will.

There's no reasonable way to prove how people must live.