Are upcoming sex robots going to normalize male aggression?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

They created the Geth and received their due for creating the monstrosities.

A robot asked a question. Don't recall what the question was, but it demonstrated sapience.

The Quarians freaked, tried to extermine them all.

Instead, they were driven from their planet and wound up refugees in space.

Minzerland sums up my thoughts on the matter, I'd help them, but they fucked up. This is why you don't create sentient beings.

Oh, the Asari are creepy as hell, have a total Catuhulu vibe. It's even suggested in game that they use mind control to mate with other species...

Im fairly certain they could breed a species out of existence if they so chose, that is if my memory on how they procreate is correct.

[Senkaku]

Questions for another thread, I think, and ones that we may never answer anyways.


No, your point is if some super expensive sex toys are too realistic, then humans will suddenly lose all interest in interpersonal relationships and society will collapse. It's a dumb point, you should find another.

Someone who thinks of their own selfish and fleeting pleasures might make the point that a sex toy like this might be less expensive than a partner. It certainly will be for some people. So they'll be bought. A complex piece of machinery like a car was at first far more expensive than a horse. As sex robots like these gradually grow more common we risk normalising their use, there's no reason why they might not reach a mass market. We can expect interest in real relationships to decline, with perhaps a similar dynamic to what you're already seeing in Japan with our comparatively primitive technology. The only thing stopping humans from following this line is our own moral values as a society and as individuals. I can't see how it's a "dumb point".

So I wasn't wrong- you're suggesting if we make sex toys too fancy, society will collapse, and now you're tossing in that humanity may go extinct by failing to breed and having birthrates fall.

Fascinating. Perhaps you should go meet some actual people, it might assuage some of your concern.

[Senkaku]

also petition to rename this thread the AI Discussion Megathread

[Herador]

...Wasn't this a Rick and Morty episode plot?

[Albrenia]

Did I slip into a parallel universe where humanity doesn't number in the billions again?

As for creating AI, I share the belief that enslaving a self-aware entity is wrong. Creating one is extremely dangerous, since we have no idea how a non-human intelligence would act, particularly one with no biological drives or emotions.

[Bakery Hill]

You implied it wasn't a social issue because "Sex dolls cannot "perfectly mimic" a partner, because they aren't fucking people." Upon realising this in the entire point of sex dolls, and our technology capabilities are making perfect mimicry more and more possible, you retreated back to the "robots aren't really people" argument, which I addressed in the post before. As I said, this is not even the issue.

Our technological mimicry is so far from replicating a human being, it's hard to describe. We can barely simulate a few seconds of the brain activity of a fucking mouse at a decelerated pace in the world's most powerful supercomputers. When they put AI systems in sex dolls that can actually pass a Turing test and at least do an excellent mime of a human's emotions and feelings, I might be concerned.

No sex doll in the foreseeable future will ever be capable of perfectly mimicking a person, no matter how detailed they get with the physical add-ons. Humans have needs for interpersonal relationships and love that go beyond sex. We also enjoy sex that has emotional connections and a partner on the other end, and hence robots will never replace people.

You just said it was only years/decades away so I feel you're talking out of your arse here.

At any rate, it's not whether about whether the robot can debate politics with you. It's appeal lies within its ability to mimic human physicality and respond to programmed prompts. I feel you're falling for a Disney take on our society. While many people still want physical and emotional connections to intertwine, with the sharp growth of technology we're growing increasingly atomised. The West is becoming socially Japanified and not in a good sense. Ageing, increasingly dependent on communication technology, while at the same time selfish and juvenile, ambivalent towards family and constructing strong meaningful relationships, socially and politically decaying. And it doesn't seem to care.

[Bakery Hill]

Someone who thinks of their own selfish and fleeting pleasures might make the point that a sex toy like this might be less expensive than a partner. It certainly will be for some people. So they'll be bought. A complex piece of machinery like a car was at first far more expensive than a horse. As sex robots like these gradually grow more common we risk normalising their use, there's no reason why they might not reach a mass market. We can expect interest in real relationships to decline, with perhaps a similar dynamic to what you're already seeing in Japan with our comparatively primitive technology. The only thing stopping humans from following this line is our own moral values as a society and as individuals. I can't see how it's a "dumb point".

So I wasn't wrong- you're suggesting if we make sex toys too fancy, society will collapse, and now you're tossing in that humanity may go extinct by failing to breed and having birthrates fall.

Extinct? Certainly not. It may be a contributing factor to our society's decay and collapse. More robust societies will no doubt take the fore, as they tend to do.

Fascinating. Perhaps you should go meet some actual people, it might assuage some of your concern.

I meet a lot of people quite regularly. I have a good set of friends and a loving partner. In my own social circumstances I'm quite lucky. I'm not some otaku locked away in a basement, if I was I might perhaps be more favourable towards a sex doll. Just because I don't share your outlook, doesn't mean I'm not well informed.

[Bakery Hill]

Well, given the way computing works, it's not likely to be a sexbot that's the first one to attain consciousness.

It would be a supercomputer like Watson. Which is still enslaving, but how you go about raping something like Watson would be... a puzzling question.

Even if a self-aware robot is has some human use its orifices for sex, would it care? It doesn't have a nervous system or anything, and unlike us, it isn't trapped in its own skull- it can just copy itself somewhere else. A body is just a shell for an AI, there's no reason to think that the idea of a human getting some semen in them or whatever would bother them. It's impossible to speculate about something that we don't even know is possible to create and the form of which we don't know.

I think you should know this argument could be used to justify all sort of disgusting unpleasantness.

[Senkaku]

Our technological mimicry is so far from replicating a human being, it's hard to describe. We can barely simulate a few seconds of the brain activity of a fucking mouse at a decelerated pace in the world's most powerful supercomputers. When they put AI systems in sex dolls that can actually pass a Turing test and at least do an excellent mime of a human's emotions and feelings, I might be concerned.

No sex doll in the foreseeable future will ever be capable of perfectly mimicking a person, no matter how detailed they get with the physical add-ons. Humans have needs for interpersonal relationships and love that go beyond sex. We also enjoy sex that has emotional connections and a partner on the other end, and hence robots will never replace people.

You just said it was only years/decades away so I feel you're talking out of your arse here.

Years/decades away if it's possible at all, based on our current ideas. It's possible that you can't just give a machine a soul. I'm inclined to believe it is, but some people think it's hopeless.

At any rate, it's not whether about whether the robot can debate politics with you.

It is- if it can't have an emotional bond with you at all, even a minor one, then it can't mimic a human.

It's appeal lies within its ability to mimic human physicality and respond to programmed prompts.

Yes- and humans and human sexuality and our desires go deeper than that.

I feel you're falling for a Disney take on our society.

But I know the current fashion is pride oneself on being a rabidly individualistic pro-technology libertine, that holds nothing sacred but your own hedonism, and certainly not archaic social constructs like "family". Maybe that explains the bizarre dancing around the point and willing ignorance on this issue.

Am I a rabidly individualistic libertine supporting my hedonism above all else or am I naively falling for a Disney version of society where people have emotional needs and desires that actually outweigh sex and pleasure? Make up your mind, Bakery. :^)

While many people still want physical and emotional connections to intertwine, with the sharp growth of technology we're growing increasingly atomised. The West is becoming socially Japanified and not in a good sense. Ageing, increasingly dependent on communication technology, while at the same time selfish and juvenile, ambivalent towards family and constructing strong meaningful relationships, socially and politically decaying. And it doesn't seem to care.

Ah, so this is just an extended "kids today" rant. Gotcha.

[New haven america]

Can you please make it more obvious that you've never been with a female? I don't think you're doing a good enough job at that.

Please continue the shaming attempts. They make me winning a lot easier.

It's not a shaming attempt, it's pointing out your ignorance when it comes to member of the opposite sex.

[Dooom35796821595]

So I wasn't wrong- you're suggesting if we make sex toys too fancy, society will collapse, and now you're tossing in that humanity may go extinct by failing to breed and having birthrates fall.

Extinct? Certainly not. It may be a contributing factor to our society's decay and collapse. More robust societies will no doubt take the fore, as they tend to do.

You know, people have been decrying the "decay of society" since the cotton mill. It never seems to get old, but also never seems to come to pass.

[New haven america]

...Wasn't this a Rick and Morty episode plot?

Uh, not really. It was a plot device for the actual plot of the episode.

[Herador]

Extinct? Certainly not. It may be a contributing factor to our society's decay and collapse. More robust societies will no doubt take the fore, as they tend to do.

You know, people have been decrying the "decay of society" since the cotton mill. It never seems to get old, but also never seems to come to pass.

The decay of society started with the Bible being translated into common language and it's just been a slow decent ever since.

Fucking peasants. /s

[Senkaku]

Even if a self-aware robot is has some human use its orifices for sex, would it care? It doesn't have a nervous system or anything, and unlike us, it isn't trapped in its own skull- it can just copy itself somewhere else. A body is just a shell for an AI, there's no reason to think that the idea of a human getting some semen in them or whatever would bother them. It's impossible to speculate about something that we don't even know is possible to create and the form of which we don't know.

I think you should know this argument could be used to justify all sort of disgusting unpleasantness.

It wasn't an argument, it was a serious question. If/when AI emerges, it's the kind of question our lawmakers will have to ask themselves, and even if the answer is "no", then you still have to wonder if we should legislate it anyways to uphold our own sense of decency towards fellow beings.

AI, man. Needs its own thread.

Please continue the shaming attempts. They make me winning a lot easier.

It's not a shaming attempt, it's pointing out your ignorance when it comes to member of the opposite sex.

Costa is fond of being incredibly misogynistic and then whining that he's being shamed for his failure to be conventionally masculine in that he hasn't had success with the ladies when he gets called out. It's not really worth engaging with, tbh.

[Dooom35796821595]

You know, people have been decrying the "decay of society" since the cotton mill. It never seems to get old, but also never seems to come to pass.

The decay of society started with the Bible being translated into common language and it's just been a slow decent ever since.

Fucking peasants. /s

What came first, the cotton mill or the printed word.

(It was the printed word, by about 2 centuries)

[The East Marches II]

Extinct? Certainly not. It may be a contributing factor to our society's decay and collapse. More robust societies will no doubt take the fore, as they tend to do.

You know, people have been decrying the "decay of society" since the cotton mill. It never seems to get old, but also never seems to come to pass.

We seem to be living in it. Being weak is decay anon. Hypernormalization, you should watch it.

[Senkaku]

Extinct? Certainly not. It may be a contributing factor to our society's decay and collapse. More robust societies will no doubt take the fore, as they tend to do.

You know, people have been decrying the "decay of society" since the cotton mill. It never seems to get old, but also never seems to come to pass.

People have been decrying the "decay of society" since societies came to be. I think we're all gonna be okay.

[Herador]

You know, people have been decrying the "decay of society" since the cotton mill. It never seems to get old, but also never seems to come to pass.

We seem to be living in it. Being weak is decay anon. Hypernormalization, you should watch it.

Society has always been decaying, then rebuilding, then decaying, then rebuilding.

I don't get this obsession with pointing it out, it seems like it's just a fact of having an organized society.

You know, people have been decrying the "decay of society" since the cotton mill. It never seems to get old, but also never seems to come to pass.

People have been decrying the "decay of society" since societies came to be. I think we're all gonna be okay.

Greek scholars were bitching about how people weren't taking democracy seriously the whole time, and someone was always saying Rome was going to shit.

[Bakery Hill]

You just said it was only years/decades away so I feel you're talking out of your arse here.

Years/decades away if it's possible at all, based on our current ideas. It's possible that you can't just give a machine a soul. I'm inclined to believe it is, but some people think it's hopeless.

You admitted you don't know what a soul is? I don't know why you're continuing along this line.

At any rate, it's not whether about whether the robot can debate politics with you.

It is- if it can't have an emotional bond with you at all, even a minor one, then it can't mimic a human.

It's appeal lies within its ability to mimic human physicality and respond to programmed prompts.

Yes- and humans and human sexuality and our desires go deeper than that.

I feel you're falling for a Disney take on our society.

But I know the current fashion is pride oneself on being a rabidly individualistic pro-technology libertine, that holds nothing sacred but your own hedonism, and certainly not archaic social constructs like "family". Maybe that explains the bizarre dancing around the point and willing ignorance on this issue.

Am I a rabidly individualistic libertine supporting my hedonism above all else or am I naively falling for a Disney version of society where people have emotional needs and desires that actually outweigh sex and pleasure? Make up your mind, Bakery. :^)

As if one can't be both at the same time? That Disney shit is just another sentimental balm that prevents us from confronting truths about ourselves and we're where going.

While many people still want physical and emotional connections to intertwine, with the sharp growth of technology we're growing increasingly atomised. The West is becoming socially Japanified and not in a good sense. Ageing, increasingly dependent on communication technology, while at the same time selfish and juvenile, ambivalent towards family and constructing strong meaningful relationships, socially and politically decaying. And it doesn't seem to care.

Ah, so this is just an extended "kids today" rant. Gotcha.

I specifically mentioned the elderly. These problems aren't confined to the youth.

[New haven america]

I think you should know this argument could be used to justify all sort of disgusting unpleasantness.

It wasn't an argument, it was a serious question. If/when AI emerges, it's the kind of question our lawmakers will have to ask themselves, and even if the answer is "no", then you still have to wonder if we should legislate it anyways to uphold our own sense of decency towards fellow beings.

AI, man. Needs its own thread.

It's not a shaming attempt, it's pointing out your ignorance when it comes to member of the opposite sex.

Costa is fond of being incredibly misogynistic and then whining that he's being shamed for his failure to be conventionally masculine in that he hasn't had success with the ladies when he gets called out. It's not really worth engaging with, tbh.

Oh, I know his little game, but it's always interesting calling him out, as his reactions do change.

[Bakery Hill]

Extinct? Certainly not. It may be a contributing factor to our society's decay and collapse. More robust societies will no doubt take the fore, as they tend to do.

You know, people have been decrying the "decay of society" since the cotton mill. It never seems to get old, but also never seems to come to pass.

That's a good point. I can't name a single society that has decayed and/or collapsed. Apart from all the ones that did.

[The East Marches II]

It wasn't an argument, it was a serious question. If/when AI emerges, it's the kind of question our lawmakers will have to ask themselves, and even if the answer is "no", then you still have to wonder if we should legislate it anyways to uphold our own sense of decency towards fellow beings.

AI, man. Needs its own thread.


Costa is fond of being incredibly misogynistic and then whining that he's being shamed for his failure to be conventionally masculine in that he hasn't had success with the ladies when he gets called out. It's not really worth engaging with, tbh.

Oh, I know his little game, but it's always interesting calling him out, as his reactions do change.

Proofs?

[Herador]

You know, people have been decrying the "decay of society" since the cotton mill. It never seems to get old, but also never seems to come to pass.

That's a good point. I can't name a single society that has decayed and/or collapsed. Apart from all the ones that did.

Remember that dude a few years ago whose schtick it was to try and prove Atlantis was real and it was still a functional society after all this time? Or something?

I bet that crazy dude would love this.

[Bakery Hill]

You know, people have been decrying the "decay of society" since the cotton mill. It never seems to get old, but also never seems to come to pass.

We seem to be living in it. Being weak is decay anon. Hypernormalization, you should watch it.

I second this motion.

[New haven america]

I've always hated Mass Effect, the Asari in particular, the way in which they breed makes me want to kill myself, if I remember what they do correctly, but refresh my memory on what happened to Quarians.

Oh, the Asari are creepy as hell, have a total Catuhulu vibe. It's even suggested in game that they use mind control to mate with other species...

And they were actually based off of a few species in Star Trek and Babylon 5 (Namely the Taresians and Minbari, respectively).