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: 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'.