SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:49PM
It is unlikely that I will ever live to see this. I do not want to be a part of a species that prefers sex machines to human beings, regardless of how real it may seem.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:55PM
I'm in a phase now, as a lot of people are, where even a lot less than* sex with a machine is preferable to sex with other humans.
For starters, there's no having to leave your house, no having to pretend to care about all the uninteresting bullshit they're yapping about, no need for phoney flattery, saving money not having to go anywhere or do anything, and most importantly not having them linger after you're done with them. Even prostitutes are a pain in the ass, and will continue to be even if prostitution is legalized and regulated.
* Hand + porn
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wantkitteh on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:15PM
You aren't alone. [theguardian.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:06AM
The article, and the one you linked both have a gloomy tone, as if robot sex, virtual reality, or some other advance are changes that might put humanity in danger of going extinct. Why, everyone might prefer all kinds of other things to sexual partners, and then no more babies will be born! Probably similar things were said of the TV back in the 1950s. But this time around, they point to all these young people, especially in Japan, who aren't interested in sex, marriage, or children. And while the articles don't explicitly connect those dots for the readers, they do point them out. Young people aren't having kids, and, thanks to technology, there are all these other fun things for people to do.
I think one other big thing is going on. At this time overpopulation seems a much more imminent and serious problem than underpopulation. If anything, we should be relieved that so many young people aren't interested in having children. Why aren't they interested? Is it because they've been drugged by technology? I think a much more powerful instinct has come into play, which is that people really are much less interested in procreation if the environment doesn't look favorable. And for the immediate future, things definitely look less rosy. We're short of jobs, room, and food. We're not used to seeing this instinct in play, because with the exception of Rwanda, we haven't had an acute overpopulation problem in some time. Have to go back to, what, the Irish Potato Famine around 1850? And in any case, for that and the relatively few similar events since, other reasons have been raised. Between 1500 and about 1950, there's been the relief valve of lots of virgin frontier territory, the New World and Wild West and the like. That's all gone now. Where else is there to expand? Mars? Antarctica, Siberia and northern Canada? The Sahara and other deserts? Instead of fruitful empty lands, we're facing the prospect of Climate Change disrupting our current food supplies. We may be standing on a crumbling overhang. If we're pushing the population limits of our tech and Earth now, a reduction will be most painful. Mostly we've minimized and headed off overpopulation problems with massive technological advances. Crop yield has increased an astonishing amount thanks to Norman Borlaug. How much further we can advance is hard to guess, but it may be that technological advance is slowing. Maybe we're in the twilight of a Golden Age of expansion, and the young sense this.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Wednesday August 05 2015, @08:29AM
Unfortunately, the corollary to that postulate is that the people most likely to continue breeding are those least able to recognize the endemic problems we're facing. We can only hope that such lack of perspective isn't hereditary.
(Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Wednesday August 05 2015, @10:12AM
We can only hope that such lack of perspective isn't hereditary.
If it even occaisionally is hereditary, then it will be selected for until it is generally hereditary. That's how evolution works.
(For those that haven't read "The Selfish Gene", I recommend it. It's a good intro to how evolution works, as well as being full of interesting examples.
Personally, I found "The Extended Phenotype" to be even better, but it builds on the concepts in The Selfish Gene so you should read that first.)
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:08PM
At this time overpopulation seems a much more imminent and serious problem than underpopulation.
Also don't forget the PHD reproduction problem, where individual profs will sometimes get all handwringy about not having enough doctoral students working under them, without thinking thru the whole problem that in a steady state-ish field the average college prof only needs to produce ONE successful phd student in their lifetime. If they squirt out 100 the whole system collapses based on supply and demand.
Likewise around 1900 european ancestry folks all have genealogy stories about families with 12 kids and 11 survived to adulthood in complete shock because in the olden days pre-civil engineering women had to squirt out like 12 kids to have 50:50 odds that two would survive to adulthood for the next generation. Now that the odds are more like 2.1 kids per woman, its not as much of an issue.
So technically women only need to have sex 2.1 times in their life, if they time for max fertility, partner is fertile, etc. Some fraction of the population spending multiple decades of their lives not having sex is just not a serious reproductive problem.
Another way to put it is aside from very short term honeymoon type experiences most folks never spend more than an hour a day having sex yet the world is crawling with kids, so spending 19/20ths of the time or 95% of the time with robots is CLEARLY not a serious impairment.
(Score: 5, Touché) by acid andy on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:32PM
You're doing it wrong.
Unless that's what you were seeking.
"rancid randy has a dialogue with herself[...] Somebody help him!" -- Anonymous Coward.
(Score: 4, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:12AM
I don't know man. Sure, dating can be a pita. Meeting people in real life only works if you got game. And my game can best be described as the kid who shows up to an arcade without any money. I do the on-line thing. But robots? How much fun could they really be?
Why do I prefer good ol' flesh? Years back my friend was trying to bang his sisters hot friend. They were back from college and her friend was staying at their parents house. It was late and just the four of us were at home. We were drinking, laughing, watching TV. He worked his magic and after a few hours he was half way into the hot friends pants. We left them alone in the a sun room. I sat on the couch watching TV and a little (okay, way more than a little) jealous that he was probably balls deep into that girl by now. But I got an unexpected surprise, his sister sat right down next to me and pulled me on top of her. Long story short he had wake me up and get me out of his sisters room the next morning before their parents came home. The look on his face when I opened the door, in nothing but my boxers was priceless. It was an amazing feeling because I had a crush on her. She was this really cute Sri Lankan girl with huge DD tits. Never in a million years did I ever think id get to make out with her, let alone take her virginity in the same night. I was on a total high the entire next day, complete euphoria.
A robot can't replace that. No challenge. No exhilarating feeling of accomplishment or *gasp* conquest. The thrill of getting close with someone and realizing she (or he) is having the same hormonal rush you are having which turns into a sloppy suck-and-fuck fest is irreplaceable. I remember laying in bed next to this beautiful black girl with the most amazing body, covered in saliva, sweat and jiz right after the first time we did the nasty. She turned toward me gave me big kiss and wrapped herself around me. That makes it totally worth the bullshit.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:51AM
I guess all video games are completely without challenge then?
Actually, for those who like to hunt, I'm sure somebody will develop "hard to get" software -- probably with multiple levels. Why there would be only version of sexbot software escapes me -- look how many text editors there are and that's nowhere near as compelling. No Virgin vs. Emaxxx flamewars please.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:52AM
grrr.
... only ONE version ...
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:27AM
omg. a sexbot using emacs for it's OS.
what more do you need?
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @08:43PM
I guess all video games are completely without challenge then?
The moment it becomes a video game you've lost the argument.
Actually, for those who like to hunt, I'm sure somebody will develop "hard to get" software
Hunting simulators already exist. Yes some people like them, some people play them. Has it in any way replaced hunting? Does it even scratch the same itch?
(Score: 1) by rizole on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:19PM
A pain in the ass? You do realise that if you're paying you can request alternative service provision?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:57PM
Millions of fleshbots turned slowly to face mendax, staring intently as he declared his wish for death. As mendax sat quietly, the fleshbots started to rub their genitals. After a tense moment of squishing noises, the fleshbots began searching their surroundings for scrap parts to fuck.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:59PM
> I do not want to be a part of a species that prefers sex machines to human beings, regardless of how real it may seem.
It isn't going to be a case of either-or. It's going to be a case of what you feel like today. Hell, half the human race is already having very satisfying sex with robots today it's just that we call them vibrators instead of robots.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:27PM
Calling a vibrator a robot and saying it counts as sex with a robot is to strip the word robot of any meaning.
I wake up in the morning when my robot goes off. I turn on the robots so I can see. Then a robot brushes my teeth. Then I get shaved by a robot. Then I come downstairs and get served coffee by a robot, then I get into my robot car, drive to work, my robot garage door opens and closes. Then at work another robot door opens, and the robot elevator takes me to the 7th floor, where I sit down and read the news on my robot until the day starts or my robot phone rings? Tonight I'll probably watch a movie on my robot, or maybe go for a run with my robot music player.
And if anyone asks me? The only robot I own is the one I made with lego mindstorms with my son. Because I, unlike you, don't think everything powered by electricity in my life is a robot.
I mean seriously, a vibrator? Most don't even have a logic circuit... its just a motor hooked up to a battery with a switch. If that is what we are going to call a 'robot'... then my ceiling fan with a remote is now 'skynet'.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @11:39PM
> Because I, unlike you, don't think everything powered by electricity in my life is a robot.
Feel better about yourself now? It is interesting that in your rush to dismiss my point the best you could do was apply derision, not logic. You've failed to define what characteristics you think qualifies something as a robot. I believe the reason you left out such a central point is because you instinctively know that any exclsionary definition you come up with can be easily challenged by counter-examples.
Ultimately, a robot is a machine designed to do specific tasks. That some robots are limited and others are complex doesn't really matter. In the context of people having sex with robots, a vibrator produces the same results - orgasms. It doesn't have feelings nor sentience. You can't have a relationship with your vibrator any more than you can have a relationship with a lego mindstorm.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:41AM
Feel better about yourself now?
Yes. I had a lot of fun with that post.
It is interesting that in your rush to dismiss my point the best you could do was apply derision, not logic.
What need was there? You, or someone else using your account ;), called an electric motor hooked up to a battery a robot. Was I supposed to take that seriously?
I believe the reason you left out such a central point is because you instinctively know that any exclsionary definition you come up with can be easily challenged by counter-examples.
No, the reason is that its a fools errand, and I had no wish to be drawn into a silly pedantic dead 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. Robot is the same.
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.
Ultimately, a robot is a machine designed to do specific tasks.
That definition is so all encompassing that it includes a spatula.
A spatula is a simple machine. A robot is a machine designed to do a task... a spatula is a robot. QED.
But that's not what anyone normal means when they say robot now is it?
And if that's how we define robot we might as well not bother having a word 'robot', since tool already covers it and robot does add anything.
Except that it does, it does add something, that's why we sometimes say robot instead of a different word. There's some hand-wavy notion of a level of complexity; sophistication; automation; some sort autonomy; in some cases even sentience.
It will prove pointless to attempt to pin a precise definition onto robot, but if you really feel the need, "not a spatula" and "not even a vibrator" is as good place as any to start.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:22AM
You sidestepped his point again. Define robot. Do it. Define robot in a way that is not absurd and is better than his.
Here, I'll give it a try: a machine that can both move with intent and make decisions on its own.
See? Not childish. Not brash. Not a long-winded and disrespectful "fuck you". He took the time out of his day to talk to you. So did I. That deserves at least an amount of respect required to have a conversation with another human being. If you criticize someone, present a solution, not just gratifying stranger-bashing. I can't believe I have to explain this to someone that is presumably an adult.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:48AM
Oh, hrm, his point again. Thank you for pointing that out, Mr. "I'm not that other guy, honest, but he makes a GREAT point".
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:28AM
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.
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @03:11AM
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
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:
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 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
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:33AM
Here, I'll give it a try: a machine that can both move with intent and make decisions on its own.
Does an automotive factory assembly line robot qualify as a robot in your definition? I certainly consider it to be a robot.
It only does what it was programmed to do, and I'm not sure it "moves with intent" or "makes decisions on its own".
And my lego mindstorms robot? I consider that a robot too. A toy robot, but still an actual robot.
What about the Honda Asimo? Does that have "intent" does it "make decisions on its own" or is it not just mindlessly following its pre-programming same as my toy?
Is a drone a robot? What about the "robotic guns" featured in the movie "aliens"?
What about a security camera system that, upon sensing motion takes a still picture and uploads it to a website? Is that a robot? If so, is it still a robot if I'm not using the motion sensor feature, and it just records continuously on a loop? What if the "motion sensor" is replaced by simple switch on the door, so when the door opens it's tripped and the camera takes a picture?
See? Not childish. Not brash.
Nor correct.
I guess my definition some sort of sufficiently complex machine that can move autonomously, using sensory feedback to guide it's actions. "sufficiently complex" -- that's pretty hand-wavy right there.
Presumably that covers both my factory bot and my lego toy, while excluding the spatula at least. But does it exclude a vibrator? Is not the switch a touch sensitive sensor. If it has some minimal control logic to vibrate at different settings after each time the button is pressed is it 'sufficiently complex'? After all my lego mindstorms robot has similar pressure switches... it simply changes direction when it bumps it into something... and the factory robot, it too has pressure sensors that it uses to grip and manipulate things.
And the security camera from my example above, which, by the way, I don't consider a "robot", that too seems to sneak in within my definition... so I reject my own definition as inadequate also.
This is why I sidestepped the the request to define robot. Not because I don't wish to engage, but because its a waste of time. You can't define it satisfactorily really. We might be able to reach some general consensus but its inevitably going to be a "hand-wavy" I'll know it when I see it sort of thing. I'm happy to use a hand-wavy definition, but it might as well be a robot is thing which most people will recognize as "being a robot". That's about as precise as it's going to get.
As a general consensus people don't think of a vibrator as a robot. That's sufficient for the word not to apply to it. QED. :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @03:18AM
Please, you can't use a fallacy of popularity and then use the acronym QED. I'm pretty sure that is a rule in a critical logic textbook somewhere.
Anyway all definitions are not perfect, but still there must be an effort to make them. You used the word people, as in person, in that quote of mine. How do you define person? Is someone braindead a person? How about a fetus, there's one to talk about for awhile. Both of those have huge medical, ethical, and legal problems associated with them that must be dealt with.
See just because something is hard to define does not mean that it is a waste of time to try, but it is a waste of time to be critical of others without presenting something better.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @07:12AM
Please, you can't use a fallacy of popularity and then use the acronym QED. I'm pretty sure that is a rule in a critical logic textbook somewhere.
Its not a fallacy in this case. Language usage *is* consensus driven. Words mean the net of what we intend to say and what we are understood to mean.
Anyway all definitions are not perfect, but still there must be an effort to make them.
Not with a person whose opening position is that a vibrator is a robot. That's not someone looking to make a reasonable definition of a robot.
Is someone braindead a person? How about a fetus, there's one to talk about for awhile
Sure its a really interesting philosophical discussion. But for the purpose of language consensus it doesn't matter. They don't use language.
Both of those have huge medical, ethical, and legal problems associated with them that must be dealt with.
And they should be dealt with on a cases by case basis. There is no definition of person that is going to satisfactorily resolve the problems. Arguing whether a fetus is a person is just a proxy fight for whether abortion should be legal, or whether they can inherit assets, or whether its right to live is on parity with its mothers if we must choose one vs the other in a medical crisis. Deciding a fetus is a person is not a person doesn't actually answer those questions.
A fetus is a fetus. They have many of the properties of a person, they lack other properties we generally expect of a person; which is precisely why they are an 'edge case'.
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:39AM
Calling a vibrator a robot and saying it counts as sex with a robot is to strip the word robot of any meaning.
Does it? Or does it get to the heart of the question as to whether using a robot to give yourself sexual pleasure counts as cheating on your partner?
Some people think using a vibrator does count as cheating, just as some consider looking at porn to be cheating. If a vibrator is not a robot, how would using a 'real' robot be different from using a vibrator?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @08:40AM
Or does it get to the heart of the question as to whether using a robot to give yourself sexual pleasure counts as cheating on your partner?
Why your partner feels cheated gets to the heart of that question.
Whether or not something meets some pedantic technical definition of a robot or not really doesn't.
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:30PM
The point is not what defines a robot.
The point is, it's not a question if we will only have sex with robots, or if it will be the preferred form. It's just that will be a normal thing to do, like porn and vibrators is today.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @08:26PM
It's just that will be a normal thing to do, like porn and vibrators is today.
Maybe. Maybe not. It will definitely at least be a niche market. And it won't be more "abnormal" than any other kink or fetish. But will it go mainstream? That's hard to predict. Personally I don't really see it happening.
Are women who just want a quick release going to stop using vibrators and switch to sex robots? Given cost, storage, cleaning effort, vs a the vibrator is small, cleans easily, works just fine, and are practically disposable? Are men looking for a quick release going to stop simply using their hand and buy a sex robot? Again, cost, storage, cleaning effort. Seems a lot of effort.
How does a sex bot compare to a prostitute...and of those that use prostitutes today... would a sexbot fullfill the same need? Or is there something in the paying a live person to have sex with you that is part of the appeal, or are they hiring a prostitute precisely because they want a live human instead of masturbating? Would a sexbot just feel like masturbating (emotionally)?
Naturally for some people, they'll want the sexbot. Rule 34 and all that.
But will it go mainstream? I know I don't particularly want one.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:28AM