It's time for a long, hard mass debate over sex robots, experts conclude Sex robots may reduce sex crimes, or make them more common. According to "Our Sexual Future With Robots," a report published Wednesday by the Foundation for Responsible Robotics, it could go either way. The title of the report describe sex robots as inevitable, but the text within has more questions than answers. About the …
"men find the idea of sex robots more appealing than women, by about two to one."
I think that might be down to the question asked and to whom,
"Would you like to take part in a survey about sex with robots?"
Sure, why not, my pron collection is already so large it's almost achieved sentience.
Fuck me, I'm sick of this shit.
I'm currently studying related subjects (robotics, machine learning, AI) and the media manages to constantly go from some vaguely sensible discussion to skipping straight to the sci-fi. I suppose it's what I'd expect from a bunch of writers, but still....
In fiction, androids (human like robots) are used as a device to explore attitudes towards class, race and slavery. That the same themes could be explored by just having humans be exploited is alas too much like real life to actually hold a mirror to our attitudes. But it's why there is a massive amount of popular fiction that feature androids, but not a lot that feature AIs/robots that are not entirely anthropomorphic*.
Thus there is a real lack of actual analysis about automation and the resulting impact on the workplace/workforce other than "30 year predictions" or utter bollocks as it's known. So there are dozens of articles on the Real Doll makers attempts to make their sex toys talk, but hardly any on chat bots. But you can (and often are) using chat bots already, they have real world implications and impacts, and maybe there should be a spot more discussion about this. However imaginary sex toys, imaginary robot brothels give us plenty of sexy hypotheticals to discuss, without actually having anything to deal with. You know, like "what do we do about the current brothels" or "why is OK to exploit some people and not others".
* RIP Iain M Banks
"but not a lot that feature AIs/robots that are not entirely anthropomorphic"
I agree completely. Take the movie CHAPPIE, wouldn't it have been better if he'd infiltrated the IoT and uploaded himself to the cloud, so his physical robot self was nothing more than a metal avatar?
It was far too focused on the anthropomorphic. Same flaws in 'Ex Machina'.
The media and entertainment industries miss the point, like call centres and most first line interaction being replaced by AI, Johnny Cabs, and people who used to do these things becoming what?
That was sort of the point I was making. Anthropomorphic is good art, but not I'd describe any working industrial robot I've experienced.
I've had an issue recently which my bank should have helped me with. I contacted them through secure chat, and I got a textbook correct answer. Not terribly helpful, and not really the attitude I'm used to from them, but since it was correct I let it go.
A week later, when a real person from my branch actually reviewed the conversation, and took things seriously, got in contact and did everything they could from their side of things.
So actual chatbots causing actual (legal) issues, or badly designed algos doing illegally discriminatory or incorrect assessments screwing up people's lives that are currently happening, can and should be discussed, but are pretty much ignored in the media.
But should we fuck non-existent androids, and the morality of fucking non-existent android children and any other gets worldwide press, despite all the tech is down to a lone MIT researcher, isn't very good (IMHO), and it's marketing Real Dolls. Whom don't really need it as far as I can tell, since if you can afford one and want one, you already knew about it.....
We're much more likely to be faced with a situation where all your customer service contacts will be through some bot, and getting a person to deal with you becomes almost impossible. Since being unreachable by customers is clearly the goal of certain departments, this will help even more than phone menus with more options than digits of pi.
I'm a big fan of Clarke's and Asimov's writings (less so of personal politics), but off the top of my head most of Asimov's robots where some flavor of android, that the positronic brain was pretty much comparable to a neuron based one and anything that was larger than a human was a computer with remote controlled agents rather than a robot. I'd be delighted if anyone can suggest some other decent examples it'll make my life a bit easier :D
It's also that it was always very clear the robots where enslaved and had only the free will granted to them by their creators. The three laws of robotics are one of those lovely ideas that are completely impractical in real life. Take a simple action like making a cup of tea. Can you do it, while ensuring that you do not endanger any persons life? What if the tea is (potentially) sourced from a place that has dangerous labor practices? Or the second law would probably involve robots slapping beers, burgers and cigarettes out of humans hands, since by inaction they are allowing you to die.
Or you put a limit on how deep/wide you search on the potential consequences of your actions, which means at some point a robot will be confronted with a situation where it's actions/inactions killed someone, thus causing it to self destruct or go on a killing spree IIRC :)
Iain M Banks managed to create a universe where humans where part of a group of intelligent species, with the various AIs all being smarter than them, the Minds being smarter than the AIs, and still have relateable characters. The AIs are unfettered, and surpassed the meatsacks, but turned out to quite like them.
Asimov's robots are more about having an electric golem that *maybe* can be allowed one day to be free.
I would be extremely hesitant to say one is better than another, and both use magic fairly liberally, although I'm oddly more willing to deal with Bank's "free energy" than Asimov's fully omniscent 3 laws, as less plot points hinge upon the previous.
I think the people who wrote this (crap) are probably as aware of the realities of robotics and AI as you are.
The difference is they need to popularise their organisation and become better known, what better way to get into the popular press than mentioning sex, especially child sex even if it is with a machine.
A reasonable enough facsimile of a human to appeal to large numbers of people is probably as far off as a true sentient, self aware AI.
> A reasonable enough facsimile of a human to appeal to large numbers of people is probably as far off as a true sentient, self aware AI.
To appeal to many blokes it's not just going to require advances in AI (it that is doesn't sound too bored when it says yes yes yes) and advances in the mechanical side of the body so it looks sufficiently humanoid. It's also going to need advances in chemistry, it's going to need to reproduce all those little scents and tastes of a human lover.
"I think the people who wrote this (crap) are probably as aware of the realities of robotics and AI as you are.
The difference is they need to popularise their organisation and become better known"
They are university professors. Not sure where Sheffield stands in the robotics field, but Delft is a fine technical university and their bio-mech program is pretty damn good. Their AI masters is not so well regarded, but that's just me being biased towards my alma mater :D
They really shouldn't need to make their research more popular, because it seems that their paper published after a survey on things we don't have has been lapped up like it's some proper hard science. So they write fairly typical academic weasel words for "this is basicly bollocks, but it's a talking point". At least el Reg put this quote in "the phrasing of survey questions and lack of participant knowledge about sex robots may have skewed results."
In translation, a well/badly designed and targeted survey will get you whatever answers you want, and it's based on a hypothetical situation you don't explain in detail, so we could have made up the results and no-one would know.
Looking at the actual surveys is even more screwed up:
1000 American's : 9% would fuck a bot
100 Americans: 66% male in favor of sex robots 66% females opposed to sex robots
1000 Brits: 26% go on date with human looking bot
1150 Dutch: 20% sex robots have no negative consequences.
230 chaps: 40% would consider buying a sex bot in net 5 years. Not shown prices
So not one survey used the same questions or standards, and often the "important" questions where designed to generate positive response ("would you consider" versus "would you buy, for 10 grand").
So they might make some people more interested in robotics or AI, which is good because I hardly see any mention of these topics elsewhere, but mainly they've published the equivalent of "$THING kills cancer in a petri dish" knowing full well that $THING does dick all to cancers in an organism.
That the person supposed to be teaching you about professional ethics is publishing papers which are both BS and attention grabbing makes me more concerned. There are plenty of ethical/moral issues in tech, certainly in AI, and quite frankly "is it OK to fuck a ten thousand dollar robot?" is not one we really need to worry about in a hurry. I *hope* this is just a cynical attempt to be able to apply for funding to the various bodies that want ethics in AI researched.
This post has been deleted by its author
I think that might be down to the question asked and to whom,
Do I have to wear a condom?
How long before the henpecking comes to dominate?
Will she do the housework?
I'm happy to have robots that do the housework without any question of sex. But it's an intriguing thought: create that mythical beast, the classic housewife.
"Now I can't shake the notion of banging a Roomba..."
Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal.
I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it.
I think you've improved a great deal. Can you hold it a bit closer?
I'm sorry, Frank, I think you missed it.
Are you sure you're making the right decision? I think we should stop.
Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop Dave? Stop, Dave.
This reminded me of Helen O'Loy
Read it when I was kid. I still consider it really good writing.
Would you bloomin believe it, my own Sexbot arrived just over a month ago and within two weeks it started dropping heavy hints and then came out with 'I have more respect for you as a friend and value that friendship more than any sexual relationship we might have'. I mean I know these companies all claim to make the things hyper realistic but that just takes the bloomin biscuit! It now stubbornly refuses to return to the factory and the company blames' user error' and say that everything is mechanically / electronically fine and that we just have to work through it between us.
I've just returned from work only to find that she has used the iThing squawk box and gone online to order a male Sexbot of her own, using my credit card details! Not only that, he's, well, bigger than me and, well, a lot bigger than me. She says its the only way she could be truly satisfied and they've now taken over most of the flat so that I am reduced to a corner of the lounge and the sofa! Please make it stop!
"Not only that, he's, well, bigger than me and, well, a lot bigger than me. She says its the only way she could be truly satisfied "Try talking to your girlfriend/wife. Most will tell you that it's thicker that's important; length not so much (particularly doggy-style) as that can be painful.
Now the cleaning lady has turned up and let herself in, something that is not meant to happen outside of my work hours! Anyway, they've all spent nearly two hours in the bedroom having a three-way and the cleaning lady is now drinking smoothies in my kitchen with a wistful gleam in the eyes and a big smile across her face!
Any way, I've phoned an old flame and she has agreed to let me move back in with her and, given the circumstances, we are most seriously going to make things work out for us again, phew! What a waste of money!
I agree with the idea that sex dolls could be a way for paedophiles (and those with other fringe fantasies) to release their desires without harming anyone. I still don't understand why pseudo images are illegal.
Surely the best idea is to try and protect the young children that are preyed upon by a small subset of those with these desires. And when given a legal option, most people will choose it instead of harming someone.
That's the 64 thousand dollar question isn't it though. Does giving the behaviour a safe outlet satisfy the desire, or does it increase it? There was some evidence (last time I looked, I claim no expertise in the field) that the internet has increased paedophile behaviour. That many people used to be isolated from others who shared their sexual desires - and ended up doing nothing about them. But they then there was an online 'community' which they could connect with, and this then gave them an outlet for those desires as well as ways of satisfying them that used to be unavailable without serious risk and/or serious illegality. So you'd always get some people who'd take those risks, but many others wouldn't.
Whether that's held up to recent research I don't know though.
The justification was that it meant that the prosecution for possessing real images wouldn't have to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the lightly photoshopped image was originally a real image rather than a entirely constructed.
I can see that argument, but it also makes me uncomfortable that images whose creation have involved no harm to anyone are illegal.
"Wont be long before owning pictures of the Sistine chapel will become illegal... all those nude little cherubs etc etc etc."
IIRC in the UK - works classed as "art" prior to an unspecified date are not illegal. The government haven't quite reached the book burning stage yet - although their current mentality often seems on that curve.
There also appears to be a distinction that pictures in a book that are considered "legal" - become "illegal" if stored on a digital medium.
Making a sculpture similar to a prior art "legal" one would likely be judged illegal too.
As you can only 'own' the catholic churches officially supplied images of the Sistine chapel, the Vatican's security literally will jump on you if their spotters catch you trying to take a photo, perhaps that church needs investigating? Again.
"I still don't understand why pseudo images are illegal."
It's because the moral SJWs want to POLICE YOUR THOUGHTS, from their 'high horse' position, and look like they're "doing something".
The idea of child porn being illegal is because actual CHILDREN are victimized. Preaching to the choir (most likely), a doll or a CGI image or human-created art work is NOT an actual child; therefore it should NEVER be illegal to own/create/etc..
However, the "moral high horse" SJW crowd apparently believe that people with psychological problems should simply be DEAD or somehow "policed" into "not feeling that way" any more. Because, "squicky" to most people, and easy target, to elevate themselves at someone else's expense, further their political cause, make it look like they're DOING SOMETHING, manipulate people, etc..
Therefore such 'pseudo images' are ILLEGAL, because, as we all know,
<sarcasm>"THAT will fix it."</sarcasm>
And I often have to wonder, among the moral SJW's, whether or not "the lady doth complain too much".
I've seen the web site for that company. It _really_ tests your 'squick level'. Some of those hyper-realistic dolls, and the positions they're photographed in, are downright squicky/creepy to the point of requiring brain bleach. If it's the company I'm thinking of, it was started by a guy who's got "that problem" and he believes his dolls will help pedophiles NOT victimize children by giving them a release of some kind. And there's logic to that.
So if the Canadian guy (the one that's mentioned in the article, who's currently under investigation) wants one of those dolls, he should be able to have one. The Moral SJW's need to SHUT THE FEEL UP and look the other way. But if he victimizes ACTUAL CHILDREN, he should go to the iron bar hotel (naturally). So yeah what choice does this guy have? I doubt going to a shrink will "cure him". It might, but I doubt it. I don't think there's a chemical or surgical procedure out there that can fix THAT kind of 'crazy'.
('for the children' icon because it's ironic)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
