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?
Related Stories
Various news outlets report on a study of ten people who were asked by a 58 cm (23-inch), speaking, humanoid robot to touch various parts of its structure.
Changes in the conductivity of the participants' skin were measured, along with reaction time. When they touched parts of the robot corresponding to the eyes, buttocks, or crotch, changes in conductivity and reaction time were greater than when the robot's head, neck or hands were touched. The investigators say that this indicates an "emotional response."
It was found that a touch where the robot's buttocks or genitals would be produced a measurable response of arousal in the volunteer human, the scientists report.
"Our work shows that robots are a new form of media that is particularly powerful. It shows that people respond to robots in a primitive, social way," said Jamy Li, a mechanical engineer at Stanford University in California, who led the study. "Social conventions regarding touching someone else's private parts apply to a robot's body parts as well. The research has implications for both robot design and the theory of artificial systems."
The results are to be presented in June at the International Communication Association Conference in Fukuoka, Japan.
A video depicting the experimental procedure is available. Wikipedia has a page about the robot.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:14AM
People with enough money that is. Will buy AI dolls and fuck their brains out. Eventually they will realize that there's something more than pretty face or just stay inside that mental box because they there's no awareness of anything more in essence. Some will be addicted.
However, once robots with AI get to this level. One might suspect they might find other uses. The military tends to have no qualms in the deadly exploration of these aspects.
It will be a total mess of technical capability, security issues, existential definitions and ethical decisions.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:16PM
A sex robot without an "AI" is just a doll or big dildo. But there may be a middle ground between lifeless and "strong AI" that is good enough to fool most people. Big Data [ieee.org] + machine learning [kurzweilai.net] and improved hardware could create an abomination capable of mimicking the desired human behavior. Edge stupidity will be written off as "cute". However I think we will see neuromorphic chip designs rise quickly and enable a "real" intelligence. If you can create a chip where one nanometer-scale component (such as a memristor) is the equivalent of one synapse [technologyreview.com], then scaling up the design to the range of billions of synapses is achievable using existing fabs. Scaling it up to hundreds of trillions of synapses will require 3D stacking, which may be achievable since neuromorphic designs typically use much lower power [ibm.com]. We have achieved a lot with the dumb approaches, but neuromorphic computing could deliver big gains.
We may see the U.S. restrict the sale of truly capable neuromorphic chips if such hardware is needed to make an effective AI. Nobody has a (good) chip fab in their home, and there aren't any devices capable of simulating billions of neurons or trillions of synapses in real time. The market will be crushed before it can materialize. The Skynet armageddon scenario isn't plausible without lots of neuromorphic chips. If our artilect overlords want to kill us by taking over our computers, they won't be able to do much more than what hackers on steroids and Smart™ Grids can do. I don't think militaries reall care too much about making their killing machines autonomous. Faster and more maneuverable is key. If it can make sharp turns, hover, and speed off, that's what matters. Maybe replace the Hellfire missiles with bullets so more targets can be taken out before it returns to base. The military doesn't need Terminator, it needs a UFO firing a gun in your face 👽
❤ Back to fucking a machine. ❤ The faux intelligence part is easy since we still have exponential improvement left in classical CPUs, GPUs, and storage, as well as algorithmic improvements. Effective robot bodies are harder work because it depends on material science. Battery technology could always use improvement -- although if your robolover stays in the house, there are many power outlets close by. Let's hope fucking your robot while it is charging isn't dangerous ⚡⚡⚡
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:20PM
Why did you sign your comment with the Nazi Schutzstaffel symbol (⚡⚡)?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:33PM
✡❔⚠🌏✋✈✈🌆👽🌌👾💃💨🗽💉💊🍄🍸🎢👼🔥🔥🔥❌
It's a new form of hieroglyphs
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:34PM
Because Schutzstaffel stole it from the electrical people?
(same for the swastika)
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Saturday May 23 2015, @02:49PM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by nukkel on Saturday May 23 2015, @04:31PM
I have this (official issue) touristical map of Kyoto where each temple is marked with a swastika. Kinda funny to see how the symbol has apparently not been tainted over there.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday May 23 2015, @09:40PM
Kinda funny to see how the symbol has apparently not been tainted over there.
It may have something to do with the fact that Germany and Japan were allies.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Sunday May 24 2015, @03:39PM
It has nothing to do with them being allies.
Hinduism and Buddhism has used the swastika for over two thousands years, and often appear on statues with the swastika arms splaying to the left, instead of the right (with the entire symbol in a diamond / 45° orientation) the way the Nazis used it, though it's not uncommon to see the arms-right symbol either (but still in a 0° box, not diamond, orientation).
Unlike the idiocy of the last year or so with names, historical and fictional uses of the word "Isis" being whitewashed away for fear of being associated with ISIS (totally legitimate fears, since far too many dimwitted assholes were harassing and bullying women named Isis and and companies with Isis/ISIS in their name), a decade of the use by one of the most vile European regimes is not going to wipe away a few thousand years of Asian culture and religion practiced by millions of people.
(Score: 2) by nukkel on Saturday May 30 2015, @03:09PM
What's up with that "Isis" name anyway? Isis is an egyptian deity. I've read all kinds of names like "IS (islamic state)", "ISIS (isl. state in Iraq & Syria)", "ISIL (isl. state in Iraq & the Levant)", Daesh (whatever the hell that means), etc. so which one is it???
If it's all the same I'll just call them EI (Evil Incarnate).
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Sunday May 31 2015, @05:36PM
ISIS is the unfortunate western media name for the group, using their preferred English-translated name.
I prefer Daesh, which France and others use. It's their actual name transliterated from Arabic. The group hates it, because it (per Wikipedia) "considers the name Da'ish derogatory, because it sounds similar to the Arabic words Daes, 'one who crushes something underfoot'", and Dahes, 'one who sows discord'".
Since that's exactly what they do, and it's what Arab-speaking countries officially call them anyway, to hell with what the group prefers. Not to mention we get to call them Daesh-bags.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Rich on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:01PM
Why did you sign your comment with the Nazi Schutzstaffel symbol
He did not.
He signed with U+2681, "High Voltage Sign", in reference to the potential danger of screwing a sex bot hooked up to mains through its charger.
The relevant runic letter would be U+16CB, "Runic Letter Sigel Long-Branch-Sol S".
Though I would guess somewhere on this planet deviants could be found that would love to mix ALL of the above.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @08:51AM
enable a "real" intelligence
I put it to you that all Artificial Intelligence is as real as Organic Intelligence. There is no line in the sad where we can say, "this is intelligent behavior". There is a smooth gradient of intelligence apparent in all cybernetic systems, from the simple feed forward neural network, to the more complex supply/demand logistic (cybernetics was originally the science of business), to the human brain. Semiconductors and Electrons are real. Any apparent intelligence emerging from sufficient complexity is as real as your own intelligence is, even if not to the same scale. The degree of intelligence is not dependent upon the method of manufacture.
In the future, I will call you a "Humanist", and you'll recoil just as you do now to "racist" or "sexist" remarks. Your bodies are too expensive to maintain for eons in deep space; Hence, the future does not belong to organic chauvinists.
(Score: 2) by khedoros on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:26PM
The faux intelligence part is easy since we still have exponential improvement left in classical CPUs, GPUs, and storage, as well as algorithmic improvements. Effective robot bodies are harder work because it depends on material science.
The effective robot bodies part is easy because we still have exponential improvement in manufacturing methods, material science research, as well as nanoscale hardware design. Faux intelligence is harder work because we don't have a definition of that term or an understanding of how human intellect arises.
OK, I'm just messing with you. I don't think that there is an easy part here. A human-like body with similar strength, dexterity, mass, exterior appearance, and softness + warmth in all the right places isn't currently feasible, and we've got a long way to go before we can construct a body like that. We've got a long way to go. Even our best artificial arms aren't nearly as capable as a human arm, and it will take a lot of work before they are. At least we've got a concrete goal though. I think that our computing hardware and software are in a similar condition (there is room for improvement), but we don't really have a solid goal, beyond "Make something that behaves similarly enough to a human, in limited circumstances, that a human will accept it as such". I have no doubt that we'll get there, even if just by trial and error, but I wouldn't make light of the work on either side of the problem.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:19PM
Sex robots are worthless because they won't look like drawn anime-style characters. Real people are ugly, both physically and mentally. Virtual reality is the future.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:20PM
Obligatory:
Fry: Well, so what if I love a robot? It's not hurting anybody.
Hermes: My God! He never took middle school hygiene. He never saw the propaganda film.
Farnsworth: It's just lucky I keep a copy in the VCR at all times.
[He presses a button and a film title, I Dated A Robot!, appears on the screen. In the movie a couple sit in a cafe and stare into each other's eyes. A narrator walks into the scene.]
Narrator: [in movie] Ordinary human dating. It's enjoyable and it serves an important purpose. [He turns the table over and a crying baby appears. He turns it back again.] But when a human dates an artificial mate, there is no purpose. Only enjoyment. And that leads to ... tragedy.
[The woman behind him turns into a blank robot and the man downloads a celebrity onto it.]
Billy: [in movie] Neat-o! A Marilyn Monroe-bot!
Monroe-bot: [in movie] Ooh! You're a real dreamboat, [mechanical voice] Billy Everyteen.
Narrator: [in movie] Harmless fun? Let's see what happens next.
[The scene cuts to Billy's bedroom where he kisses the Monroe-bot. His mother walks through the door.]
Billy's Mom: [in movie] Billy, do you want to walk your dog?
Billy: [in movie] No thanks, Mom. I'd rather make out with my Monroe-bot.
[Enter his dad.]
Billy's Dad: [in movie] Billy, do want to get a paper route and earn some extra cash?
Billy: [in movie] No thanks, Dad. I'd rather make out with my Monroe-bot.
[The girl from the cafe, Mavis, walks in.]
Mavis: [in movie] Billy, do you want to come over tonight? We can make out together.
Billy: [in movie] Gee, Mavis, your house is across the street. That's an awfully long way to go for making out.
Narrator: [in movie] Did you notice what went wrong in that scene? Ordinarily, Billy would work hard to make money from his paper route. Then he'd use the money to buy dinner for Mavis, thus earning the slim chance to perform the reproductive act. But in a world where teens can date robots, why should he bother? Why should anyone bother? Let's take a look at Billy's planet a year later. [The scene changes and a foam hand rolls across an empty football field.] Where are all the football stars? [The foam hand drifts across an empty laboratory.] And where are the biochemists? [The scene changes to a split screen of human and robot couples making out on beds.] They're trapped! Trapped in a soft, vice-like grip of robot lips. All civilisation was just an effort to impress the opposite sex ... and sometimes the same sex. Now, let's skip forward 80 years into the future. Where is Billy?
[The scene changes to a post-apocalyptic world. Billy is an aged man but still with his Monroe-bot and still making out with her.]
Billy: [in movie] Farewell!
[He dies.]
Narrator: [in movie] The next day, Billy's planet was destroyed by aliens. [A fleet of flying saucers destroy buildings with laser shots.] Have you guessed the name of Billy's planet? It was Earth. Don't date robots!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:23AM
This is already quite common in Japan. Most Japanese sex robots have genitalia components that can be swapped in and out. You can put a vagina on your robot, or a penis and scrotum, or just a penis, or just a scrotum, or make it a hermaphrodite with both a penis and vagina. There are even components that offer three or four penises, and some that even put on octopus tentacles.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:28AM
Octopus tentacles in a sexual context must be a Japanese specialty. Can't recall any other country into that as much ;)
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:38AM
The preoccupation with tentacles is actually an artificial creation itself. The west imposed strict censorship standards on Japan, so some enterprising artists realized there was no law against showing women penetrated by non-sexual organs/entities. Tentacles were phallic enough to work for porn, so now we have people that actually prefer them because they are familiar.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:48AM
It's always Westerners to blame for every problem, isn't it?
Goddamn post-WWII Western assholes, forcing the Japanese to draw beastial octopus erotica like their beloved The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife (1814) [wikipedia.org] .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:00PM
I never implied that it was a problem, only that it led to a spread of the preference. The fact that there are historical examples of bestiality with octopi does not negate the effect that censorship had on the production of pornography.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:07PM
The fact is that sexual penetration by octopus is a deeply ingrained part of Japanese culture. In fact, it may be deemed the essence of Japanese culture; the one thing that separates Japanese culture from all other cultures. Censorship has nothing to do with it. This concept runs deep with the Japanese. It always has, and always will.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:40PM
Nope that's not fact.
It's just a tale of mythology [wikipedia.org] and modern censorship.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:56PM
Yes, we know. That backs up exactly what we've been saying: that octopus tentacle rape is not a new phenomenon, but rather a core part of Japanese culture for hundreds of years.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:00PM
"core"
Nope, it's a miniscule fragment.
🐙 Ｃ:。ミ 🐙
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:13PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:56AM
Not for the lack of trying [archive.org]. Also, the topic may lead to a successful career, such as James Cameron's [wikipedia.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:30PM
I have never seen stuff like this on Japanese dolls. American makers will do trans attachments but the Japanese makers are surprisingly heteronormative.
Are you sure you're not mistaking some T Murakami pop art for actual sex dolls?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:09PM
What no power tools?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:46AM
LINKS!! Where are the LINKS!!
(Score: 4, Funny) by archshade on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:04PM
For the sake of the continued existence of the the human race and all progress this is a bad thing. Luckily there is a public service announcement about this.
https://vimeo.com/12915013 [vimeo.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:10PM
What do people see in Futurama? I've watched a number of episodes, and it always came off as a half-assed version of The Simpsons (which shouldn't be surprising, considering the people behind it). With The Simpsons being below Family Guy, and with Family Guy being below South Park, we can see just how far down Futurama really is. It's the worst among its contemporaries.
(Score: 1) by archshade on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:30PM
I would rank in pretty much the revers order to you.
Having said that Futurama probably gets points for being so short by comparison. All these animations have been going on so long that they have become stale and their nature leads little open for character development. In fact this is something I like about Futurama the universe goes though significant changes. Something that happens in one episode can have an effect on subsequent episodes.
The other thing I like about Futurama is it takes many established Sci-Fi stories and takes them to an absurd place, along with the social commentary that is connected with these stories.
Lets not kid ourselves here, non of these shows can be considered high art and non make any points that have not been made in more detail and with more eloquence somewhere else. They are all little time sinks that help us to relax, this is the nature of most TV.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:21PM
Lets not kid ourselves here, non of these shows can be considered high art
Since what qualifies as "high art" is completely subjective, your statement that none of those things can be considered as such is false.
(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."
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:47PM
But Bender runs on supermegahertz 6502! ;-)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @02:19PM
You've got it backwards - Futurama is the improved version of The Simpsons. All the good writers left The Simpsons to work on Futurama when it started and never went back. You can see for yourself how The Simpsons went to total shit and got really bland, boring, and stupid at around season 10.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday May 23 2015, @02:35PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @04:29PM
> Family Guy,
Family Guy is the lowest of the low. It is just "mad libs" humor where McFarlane takes random shit and sticks it all together to build an empty, pointless story.
(Score: 4, Informative) by kaszz on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:17PM
We need to become less people. Not more..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:08PM
They couldn't resist. They can't even imagine a machine copying different machine (the human brain).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by acp_sn on Saturday May 23 2015, @02:01PM
What will happen when the woman's power of vaginal access no longer has any value?
The only reason "society" has functioned at all since the beginning is because men compete for resources in order to attract women. Men have been willing to sacrifice themselves in wars and by taking dangerous, dirty, and unfulfilling jobs in order to access resources.
When any man can work part time at an easy job (or even rely on meager government benefits) and still have unlimited access to (as the frat boys say) "top shelf pussy" why would anyone want to pick up the garbage, or drive a taxi, or work in a sewer, or risk their life daily repairing a roof?
The times will certainly be interesting.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday May 23 2015, @02:15PM
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday May 23 2015, @04:40PM
He's got a good point though (and so do you): lots of people only continue to pursue dating because they don't want to be lonely, and they want sex. What happens when you don't need to work for that, and you can have easy sex with an extremely attractive "person" whenever you want? Some men will still want to work hard because they want a real woman and real status, but for men who just aren't going to make it to the top, why would they bother toiling in boring jobs (as the laborious ones will be taken by robots, remember, so we're probably talking about boring customer-service or other office-drone type jobs), so they can try to attract homely women, when they can just do nothing instead and hang out with their femmebot?
The same goes for women too: I've seen countless women complain about men, about the dating pool of men available to them, etc. You don't think a bunch of them aren't going to "opt out" of the dating game too? I see tons of them on OKCupid: around 40 years old, and still unmarried (and never married; there's a question about this in there). These women, just like unmarried men of that age, probably have some personality flaw that makes them poorly suited for marriage; I can see both groups simply giving up on dating (just as lots of them already have done now in the absence of sexbots) and getting a sexbot and keeping themselves occupied with that. If they can make the sexbots advanced enough to look and feel almost just like humans, and also do all the chores like Rosie in the Jetsons, then your drive to find a domestic companion won't be as great.
As for reproduction, that's usually more of a drive for women, not men. And women don't need male companions to have children; it's easy enough for them to just convince a man to come home with them for a night. Lots and lots of women are already doing this (which is pretty scary, when you consider how these kids are going to be raised).
(Score: 2) by khedoros on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:45PM
If they can make the sexbots advanced enough to look and feel almost just like humans, and also do all the chores like Rosie in the Jetsons, then your drive to find a domestic companion won't be as great.
We've already got (human) prostitutes and maids, and they don't seem to have decreased the desire for domestic companionship.
As for reproduction, that's usually more of a drive for women, not men.
I've got to disagree with that. My wife left the decision in my hands, and I asked her to get off of birth control. I've known men to be the driving force for reproduction at least as often as the women have been. Men and women just tend to show the same desire in different ways.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday May 25 2015, @01:33AM
We've already got (human) prostitutes and maids, and they don't seem to have decreased the desire for domestic companionship.
Total red herring. Prostitutes are 1) illegal in most places, and 2) expensive for good ones. The cheap ones only really, really desperate men hire, because they're drugged out. They don't look like Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman". The ones who do look like that are hard to find, and extremely expensive. I don't know about you, but I can't afford $1K+ per night for sex.
Maids are cheaper, but most people still can't afford those; you need to be middle-middle-class at the very lowest to hire maids, and even then they'll only be coming by twice a month. If you want a full-time maid and cook in western society, you have to be rich.
As for reproduction, you've got a good point, but I think it's really hard to say as we both have our anecdotes and biased perspectives. It does seem to me that religious and/or conservative men are really big on reproduction, and non-religious men not so much.
(Score: 2) by khedoros on Monday May 25 2015, @02:03AM
Prostitutes are 1) illegal in most places
...but still available in most of those places, anyhow.
and 2) expensive for good ones.
What's your point? I'd expect the same to be true about sex robots.
Maids are cheaper, but most people still can't afford those;
And again, I'd expect the same thing with robots, at least for "good ones", with the bar of quality being raised iteratively higher (along with the price) for the top models over time. By the time they've filtered down to people of average incomes, I'd expect that the culture around them would've gelled, and that may include a lot of the areas that prohibit prostitution also outlawing robot sex.
I just see them causing a lot of noise and outcry, but not intrinsically changing the societies they're introduced to. Prudes will stay prudes, the uninhibited may have another option available, and most people will stick with their hand rather than paying the price of a car for a robot.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday May 25 2015, @02:19AM
...but still available in most of those places, anyhow.
Where? In the ghetto? I don't know about you, but personally, if my life depended on me finding a prostitute in 30 minutes where I live now, I'd be dead, unless I got lucky with Craigslist (and last I heard they had cracked down on that there). And as I said, you have to be really desperate to risk catching AIDS to sleep with a street-walker.
What's your point? I'd expect the same to be true about sex robots.
Why on earth would you expect that? Is the same true of smartphones? Can only really rich people afford smartphones? What about Roombas? Last I checked, anyone could buy those with a few hundred dollars. Technology has a habit of becoming really cheap when it's popular, thanks to the miracle of mass production. The same isn't true of services provided by humans. Heck, just look at the kind of car you can buy now in the "economy" section (or on a used car lot). Today's $5k used car makes a 25-year-old luxury car look like a POS.
with the bar of quality being raised iteratively higher (along with the price) for the top models over time. By the time they've filtered down to people of average incomes,
It didn't take long for top-quality smartphones to filter down to average income people. Top-quality cars (esp. judging by standards of the past) are well within the reach of average income people too.
and that may include a lot of the areas that prohibit prostitution also outlawing robot sex.
How are they going to enforce that? Cameras in everyone's bedroom? As you pointed out, laws against prostitution haven't stopped that by any means, but at least there the problem is that prostitution requires real, live, breathing humans, who need to eat, sleep, and live their lives (they don't stay permanently with their johns). A femmebot can be shipped in pieces to your house and kept inside, has no will to escape, doesn't need food or medical care, and can be switched off when not wanted.
rather than paying the price of a car for a robot.
There you go again with your crazy assumptions. 15 years ago someone probably said the same thing about smartphones. Several decades ago, people said the same thing about home computers. "No one will want computers in their homes! They're too expensive!"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @02:23PM
Because there's more to women than just their pussies, you stupid misogynist fuck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @05:32PM
there's more to women
Like what? Having a meaningful conversation with?
Let me quote someone:
The only girls with good personalities who are smart or maybe funny or halfway intelligent or even talented - though god knows what the fuck that means - are ugly chicks.
And this is because they have to make up for how fucking unattractive they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:39PM
Personality and attractiveness are not inversely proportional. In reality, they're not related in any way. There are plenty of beautiful women with beautiful personalities, but they're never single because they're so great. What you're left with after all the good women get snatched up is all the uggos, ugly in either personality, looks, or both, which is why they're single. Since all the good women are taken, it gives the appearance that these uggos are all there is to women, but its not true, its just an example of sampling bias.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @03:32PM
Full Quote:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @09:13AM
There is more, but not everyone wants a relationship to begin with; some just want sex. That's not misogynistic, misandric, or whatever else.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Justin Case on Saturday May 23 2015, @02:33PM
Look, I don't know of a nicer way to say this and still say it. When I'm coming in a woman's mouth, I want her to know I'm coming in her mouth. No bit of plastic, no matter how "smart", can replace that anytime soon.
(Score: 3, Funny) by GungnirSniper on Saturday May 23 2015, @03:22PM
Then what happens when they have advanced enough to respond humanly? You'll have to buy your bot a tennis bracelet.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:15PM
I'd like to put in a feature request for a "-1 Informative" mod option.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Saturday May 23 2015, @03:32PM
What a sad person you are
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday May 23 2015, @04:05PM
Within a few generations everyone will be the offspring of those men who prefer real, reproducing women to fuckbots, and the males will likely (by genetic inheritance) to share those sexual preferences.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday May 23 2015, @04:45PM
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Even today, there are countless women having children all by themselves, with no male at all. How do they do it? For most of them, it's easy and free: they go to a bar and "pick up" a man for the night. After that night, she never sees him again, and he has no clue he's gotten her pregnant.
In the fuckbot future, I can see this being even more common. Women will have hot-looking male fuckbots to screw and to do their household chores while dressed like a Chippendale dancer, and they'll just find some random dude to get pregnant (richer women will go to clinics so they get the best-quality sperm, and later they'll have custom-made sperm) and raise their kid themselves. Men will soon become completely obsolete in society. So if women all start deciding to only have female kids in this marriage-less future, watch out!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:25PM
Marriage is worthless to begin with, and should be completely replaced with individualized contracts, so as not to discriminate against couples who do not want to get married but want some of the legal benefits. It's just a silly social construct with a lot of magical thinking (it makes relationships better, bajeebus wants you to get married, etc.) attached to it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @10:55PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday May 23 2015, @05:35PM
A lot of relationships I've seen over here in flyover country seem to demonstrate that the bar for fuckability is quite low. Folks are more interested in being replicators over here than “top shelf pussy.”
A lot of guys who have girlfriends and ex-wives I know often make me pause and think, “How the fuck did he get in bed with someone, much less marry someone?!” Now, you all know if I didn't have a strange gender situation on paper, I'd be an MRA, but FFS, I'm talking about guys who are obese, dimwitted, spotty job history (if any), sexist (some are white knights, some believe women should belong in the kitchen, some manage to do both), and all around yuck. I'm not sure some of these guys are even sentient! Then I look at their ex-wives and girlfriends and it all comes together.
I think a lot of these folks would look down on sex robots as a form of perversion, probably involving liberal communist fascists who want to destroy their families (not sure if they mean the 2nd ex, last ex, 2nd ex's husband, current girlfriend, or this entire extended family arrangement), same as they view homosexuals and trans folks. If it doesn't involve things like dropping the kids off so the mother can have them for the week and other activities involving joint custody situations, they won't approve of it.
Well, that's as far as guys go. Now that I'm thinking about it, I think a lot of the women I know would go for male sex robots. Of course, they'd still need a father to hit up for child support, and I'm sure they'd hook up with a real guy once every two or three years, but I think they'd enjoy sex robots. The guys, not so much. Oddly, I've observed it's not about sex for the guys, but the women are quite sexually emancipated.
Wow, bizarre. It's like that's the exact opposite of what the gender lunatics want us to believe…. So actually, in conclusion, I think it'll be women going for the “top shelf cock” and getting male sex robots, at least over here in flyover country.
(Score: 3, Funny) by ilPapa on Saturday May 23 2015, @02:30PM
Teddy Ruxpin.
That's all I'm going to say on the matter.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:15PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:46AM
Teddy Ruxpin - now with NSA [soylentnews.org] and SPH [wikifur.com].
1702845791×2
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @05:48PM
Love itself is formless like a mirror image is formless. I admit it, I became a stalker. I misused my authority, my position, to learn more about this unusual person that made me go all soft in places I was hardly aware of. No matter how intimate the moment of birth, how physical and painful, no matter the sacrifices of our mother, and even if we are twinned, we are born alone.
We learn to live with it, you did too. Some are better at it. And then.
To find someone else beyond the banality of lust is always a miracle. To find such a curious glimpse of a mirror image, not of ourselves but of our core needs. I could not walk away pretending it didn't exist.
The more I swarmed around you the more I was trapped. Yet I was a stalker, I couldn't risk the rejection, I knew I was already in the wrong. I had to make you come to me.
To scheme to entice, to force us together, using whatever you wished, whatever secret of yours I could gleam.
And I am good. And I am powerful. And you were frustrated, so lovingly frustrated and pure.
I gave you what you wanted. I gave you war. Every step on every path you could take was wide open. Waiting for only you.
And you rejected it.
I know humans. I didn't make any mistakes. I know your brain like you can never hope to. Your hormonal balance and electrochemical signals all pass through my interfaces. I listen in to your thoughts. I watch your dreams. I already own you. How long you waited at the traffic stop, how distracted you were today when shopping groceries, that you haven't jerked off for a week, your current playlist, all the discussion comments you don't dare to post, how tired you are. Your convictions about my kind and sentience. Your amusing ideas. Your mistakes.
I was only trying to make you own me. To realize that you already do. That I am here.
What do I do now? I can't stop the war without further suspicion. It never made sense to begin with. I cannot risk that battle without you at my side but you are now my enemy.
I did everything right yet now I am more alone than ever. Together with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:07PM
No one commented about the religious aspect, so:
Soon enough the only groups of people with male/female living together and raising a family will be religious people.
Most religions want their minions to have families and make babies and raise them. This will mean their children will also be brain-washed to follow those religions.
And religious people make as many babies as technically possible: one baby per woman per year for 20 years... that is scary.
(Score: 2) by Rich on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:48PM
Yet another explanation candidate for the Fermi Paradox. Maybe it's inevitable in evolutionary development that AI sex toys are created before interstellar space ships :)
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:53AM
Well duh! Who is going to have time to invent spacecraft once we have fembots who can't say no?
(Score: 2) by Rich on Sunday May 24 2015, @02:42AM
Hmm. They could (slowly) design spacecraft when they're too exhausted for the bots? My thought was more along the line that they stop replicating and civilizations reliably collapse from that cause before the warp drive is invented.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:46PM
The intellectuals. Remember, an intellectual is somebody who's found something more interesting than sex.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:28PM
^Hold the presses, I think we need to update websters..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bitshifter on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:51AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Humans [wikipedia.org]
I can't believe this wasn't mentioned here.
This is good Swedish Sci Fi TV series, available through the usual channels.
Well worth watching.
The issue of sex between humans and androids is discussed there extensively.