SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The concept of AI—specifically of the foxy, sexualized persuasion—has permeated pop culture for a very long time, most recently exemplified with Alex Garland's Ex Machina.
Technology, as it is wont to do, continues surging forward, simultaneously beckoning or threatening (depending on personal outlook) the potential of true artificial intelligence. And should these AI rise up, what kind of role would sexuality and sexual identity play in their existence—if at all? Hopes&Fears corralled a group of varied experts to weigh in through a group panel discussion to see what the future holds for us, the AI... and our respective crotch parts.
What does the SoylentNews community think about this?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Artificial Sexuality: A Round-Table Discussion on Screwing Robots
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 74 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
McDonald's -- Because you're worth it.
(Score: 1) by archshade on Saturday May 23 2015, @09:46PM
Since what qualifies as "high art" is completely subjective, your statement that none of those things can be considered as such is false.
Fair point. My personal definition of high art and therefore not something I expect someone else to follow (iin fact I expect some people to completely to disagree with); is any piece of art that get me to reevaluate my world world view. I don't have to agree with it, I can take it as a peice that I consider and decide is flawed but the point is that it induces me to think. I don't think that any of these shows give cause for me to think if they make any points they make them in an explored and tired way. This does not mean they are not enjoyable, I watch them all to some extent and enjoy my time doing so.
On consideration my definitions is flawed on at least two points. Firstly my life experience is unique (this sounds superior everyone experience of the world is unique to them) , these shows may introduce people to as yet undiscovered points of view. Even if they have never for me. Secondly my POV allows a poor piece of art with a strong political message to be considered "high art" while a well executed piece with no political or cultural message would be considered "low".
My personal definitions are flawed, and flawed in more ways than I have put above. Ultimately my consideration is based on emotional reaction to the the work. I would love to see a defence of any of these animations as "high art". From a purely self gratifying point of view I would like someone to justify my repeated watching of Futurama beyond the base "I find it amusing".
Going further my entire statement was subjective or was based on a subjective premise. That being the case I would relish a point that argued an alternative POV. Discussing such matters is how we grow and why I read this site.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 24 2015, @02:13AM
From a purely self gratifying point of view I would like someone to justify my repeated watching of Futurama beyond the base "I find it amusing".
Well, maybe that could be one defense. Maybe someone thinks that something sufficiently amusing to them qualifies as "high art."