Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Sex With Robots to Be 'the Norm' in 50 Years, Expert Claims

posted by takyon on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the neural-network-penetration dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

Humans could soon be having sexual relationships with robots, a top academic has claimed.

Dr Helen Driscoll said advances in technology mean the way in which humans interact with robots is set to change drastically in the coming years.

Dr Driscoll, a leading authority on the psychology of sex and relationships, said 'sex tech' was already advancing at a fast pace and by 2070, physical relationships will seem primitive.
...
She said: "Most people successfully integrate other forms of virtual reality into their lives, but virtual sex - not to mention love - will be seen by some as infidelity, and this will present real challenges to some relationships.

"In the world of the future, we could well see human relationships increasingly conducted entirely online.

Would you feel cheated on if your partner had sex with a robot?

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Sex With Robots to Be 'the Norm' in 50 Years, Expert Claims | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 70 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:28AM

    by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:28AM (#218300) Journal

    Your attempt is disastrous at best, so parents intent to just skip this altogether was the better take. Intent and making "own" decisions implies sentience, which is definitely not mandatory for a robot.
    Parent exactly described, why it is a fools errant to give a strict definition of a robot.

    Somewhere on the continuum between a vibrator and R. Daneel Olivaw you'll have a bona fide robot. But you certainly don't have it at the vibrator end.

    Try defining a mountain. And then tell me exactly how many grains of sand it needs to be one, whereby removing one grain just makes it a hill.

    Even wikipedias definition could be seen as controversial, as it specifies a computer or circuitry. How complex a circuitry?

    --
    Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @03:11AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @03:11AM (#218322)

    All definitions are illusions. The map is not the terrain as neurologists say. If we are to discuss definitions, then we should try. To not is just to throw stones for no reason but personal pleasure.

    • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday August 05 2015, @03:54PM

      by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday August 05 2015, @03:54PM (#218598) Journal

      To anyone following the discussion up to this point, I can recommend Science of the Discworld from Terry Pratchett, in this context the chapter "BEGINNINGS AND BECOMINGS", especially page 99ff. (Don't be mislead by the title. It is mainly a book about our universe/world, written from an outside perspective. It's a book about reality, not fantasy.) The following quotes are from this book:

      There are similar debates about exactly when developing embryo becomes a person [...] conception? When the brain first forms? At birth? Or was it always a potential person, even when it ’existed’ as one egg and one sperm?[...]

      The same for mountains/hills (as mentioned as an example above in this thread) and for robots: When does a device become a robot? Which added wire or transistor makes it a robot?

      The 'draw a line' philosophy offers a substantial political advan­tage to people with hidden agendas. The method for getting what you want is first to draw the line somewhere that nobody would object to, and then gradually move it to where you really want it, arguing continuity all the way.

      The problem is that there is no clear line between robot and no robot, and it makes no sense to try to draw one unless someone has a hidden agenda. You can argue that soma machine has more robotic qualities than another, or is more robot-like, or a more advanced robot, or on the other end that a machine hardly qualifies as a robot at all, but that's more or less it.

      --
      Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum