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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:36AM
Well, to be fair, when you spew pointless drivel there really isn't much point to responding with anything other than derision.
OK, here I am going to help you out a little bit. Most, if not all, definitions of robot include the notion of an agent which has autonomy. Usually, this is taken to mean that a robot has power to make decisions and maneuver about or manipulate its environment based on those decisions. I am sure that those who are experts in robotics would mostly agree with that. And, no, a vibrator does not fit that definition of robot. While development of robots which display basic emotions is an active area of research, emtional affectation is not a defining feature of robots. I hope this dispels your (considerable) ignorance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:33AM
Most, if not all, definitions of robot include the notion of an agent which has autonomy. Usually, this is taken to mean that a robot has power to make decisions and maneuver about or manipulate its environment based on those decisions.
So, your definition of robot requires processing of inputs? That rote operation does not qualify as a robot? [wikipedia.org]
See what I meant when I said any exclusionary definition you can come up with will be easily debunked?
> And, no, a vibrator does not fit that definition of robot.
Well of course it does not, you don't think a vibrator qualifies as a robot so you picked a definition that (you think) doesn't match a vibrator.
> While development of robots which display basic emotions is an active area of research, emtional affectation is not a defining feature of robots.
I never said it did. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. That you think I said otherwise suggests very poor comprehension on your part. At least you kept it brief so your errors were obvious. Vuxhaul is just to damn verbacious to read through all his sanctimonious bullshit.