digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Sex With Robots, New High or Low for Humanity?

msnbc.msn.com — "My forecast is that around 2050, the state of Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots,"

show profanity settings
expand all
  • morningmatters, on 12/21/2007, -7/+40"Levy predicts Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize human-robot marriage. "Massachusetts is more liberal than most other jurisdictions in the United States and has been at the forefront of same-sex marriage," Levy said. "There's also a lot of high-tech research there at places like MIT."
    Japan will likely to produce sex-bots first, not the US. Also, while we Bostonians are somewhat open-minded, we are not completely whacked.
    • YevS, on 12/21/2007, -4/+14Actually in the sex doll trade Japan is copying the US at the moment with real dolls and all that. Japan is pretty strict on sex. The fact that they are advanced in robotics does not mean they will use robots for sex first.
      • masterm1nd, on 12/21/2007, -2/+6I'm pretty sure Japan leads the world actually in "sexual progression", not real sure what term to use...
        • Ellipsys, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4I think I concur. Check out www.kanojotoys.com. NSFW! But its a blog of some of the sex toys available, including multi-thousand dollar Japanese real dolls. I'd never buy one, but I have to say they look more realistic than their american counterparts, specifically in the facial area. The Japanese put a TON of research into "uncanny valley" development to ensure that robots have friendly faces that don't freak the hell out of humans.
        • DeathfireD, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2That's like the Japanese doll that looks and feels just like a human and even allows you to program (record) different voices and sounds. I'm pretty sure it was posted on her a few months back. Basically it was an advanced bot that let you program sounds and voices for different emotions that it would determine when you touched. For example if you rubbed the boob softlee it would use the "moan" sound/voice that you set. If you squeezed it, it would use the I don't like this sound or voice. All they need to do is make them walk and build in support for wireless Internet and we wont need our PCs anymore ;).
      • DiamondIce, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4Japan is one of the most sexually liberal countries in the world. Don't let the whole censorship of genitals thing fool you, that was instituted because of U.S. pressure, same goes for the legal age of consent, before U.S. pressuring Japan had neither of those.
    • carltonsmith, on 12/21/2007, -0/+11Not completely whacked. Just mostly whacked.
    • Valthonis, on 12/21/2007, -0/+10It should be noted that Boston != Massachusetts. There's a whole lot of state that's not Beantown.
    • AsylumAleikum, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4Masshole special - anal sex with robots.
    • chakl, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9Wasn't this on futurama?
      • blackkbot, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Yeah but it was "making out" and electro-gonorrhea.
    • BigKoi, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4Marriage is about property rights not sex. Unless robots can own property I don't see this becoming an issue.
    • JapaneseEconomy, on 12/21/2007, -0/+12Will we have to wait 18 years past the manufacturing date to have sex with it?
      I don't want to have hot online chat sessions with a minor robot then drive over to its house only to find cyborg Chris Hansen standing their with a film crew....
      Those damn robots always lie about their age.
    • Kerrigore, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3It happened on Battlestar Galactica. Therefore, it will happen in real life.
    • eagles2k3, on 12/21/2007, -4/+1Actually you are comjpletely whacked. I'm still trying to figure out how you give someone 13 years for chopping up mommy and let him go after he already led police to a couple of other bodies. Now we have two dead people in our state thanks to your judicial system. You ought to be enacting a one strike and you're out law instead of giving criminals a nice pat on the back.
      • thescimitar, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Don't like it? Don't live there. I see you've dugg Ron Paul in the past. You should be familiar with states' rights.
        • eagles2k3, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1I'm all for it as long as you keep your trash in your own state.
      • Cerebral, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1WTF... wrong thread?
        • eagles2k3, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1No just look up the double murder that happened out in Washington about a month ago. Compliments of Massachuttes. I'd love for someone to explain why he was let out of jail.
  • YevS, on 12/21/2007, -4/+20I don't think we will get "robots" as such any time soon. Mannequins with a computer inside is more likely.
    • MacEnvy, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1If the mannequin is motile, what's the difference?
    • fantasticFlan, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Wouldn't that be a robot? Not a walking, talking, get me beer robot, but a robot still.
      • blackkbot, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1All you have to do is put a beer in the chest and the ***** as straws. If I can set it up to lay on top of me while I'm playing video games, I'll be set for a lot weekends. Who needs friends when you can have an alcohol dispensing mobile sex device.
    • EbilPhish, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1I don't think we will ever get humanoid robots, I think the technology will make robots pointless.

      Why make a robot to wash your dishes instead of a dishwasher or dishes that autoclean themselves by having some nanotechnology based material that makes dirt slide off?

      Why make a humanoid construction robot when you can make one with 8 arms that included various drills, hammers, saws and can hold much more at once.

      Why make a robot to drive a bulldozer or car when you can just automate the vehicles them selfs.

      Although in reality I think it will be more likely that new ways of construction will be made, such as fabricated home by using a giant 3D printer running along scafolding setup over a house site.

      Actually Sexbots are about the only thing I can think of that would benefit from being a humanoid robot, but even then by 2050 we should have the ability have some kind of virtual reality where we can just have a porn simulation rather than building an expensive and unalterable robot, or a strong AI able to tell us how to build it our selfs (if the robots are capabile of being considered to be married then they must have human level AI, and if you can build humoid AI you can get a better/more computers and make super intelligent AI). Or perhapses we will no longer be human and won't need such things (or both the VR simulation and the nonhuman thing such as uploading brains to computers).

      If the technology isn't at the point by 2050 then the technology for making humanoid robots will also be fairly bad in comparison so the robots won't be much more than those Japanese love dolls except perhapses with basic movement and sound.
      • Kerrigore, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4I think in 2050 we will look back at internet posts like this one, laugh, and be like "Man, we don't even have flying cars yet! Forget AI!"
  • rtknox00, on 12/21/2007, -2/+65i don't take kindly to all this newfangled technology. I'll stick with my real doll thank you very much.
  • GOVStooge, on 12/21/2007, -2/+72well, if it's hot.....
    • banthis, on 12/21/2007, -5/+5well, look at the positive side, you won't need condoms, you won't need to worry when your girlfriend says "my period is late" .. :D
      • aukxsona, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5Unless you share her with your buddy...then you WILL need condoms. One blow up doll on a submarine and 40 guys come down with Gono...how. Doll face of course.
        • banthis, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7Why the heck would you share that? ..
          • aukxsona, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Because it happens...oh yes and to prove guys are nasty.
      • Kumah, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1Unless she's a Cylon.
  • ordig, on 12/21/2007, -2/+31but that will put hookers out of work.
    • sjbdallas, on 12/21/2007, -4/+28That is kind of ironic isn't it? You can buy a fake girl and have sex with it all you want, but you can't pay a real girl to have sex with you. Hardly seems fair.
      • krisscofield, on 12/21/2007, -3/+5Yeah but hookers = STD's, synthetics will = hot safe sex.
      • Dustmuffins, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3Interesting how you hold hookers at the same level as a doll.
        • rspeed, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Wasn't his entire point that they're NOT on the same level?
    • jefuchs, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Don't worry. Men will still cheat on their robots.
    • MrTea, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3and pimps can make their own robots and rent them out
  • sjbdallas, on 12/21/2007, -15/+14Having sex with a robot is one thing, but I can't see anyone actually LOVING a robot. It seems to me that love is a 2-way street and if it's fake love, I can't see people falling for it.
    • dogstar0125, on 12/21/2007, -4/+34You've obviously never been married.
    • houndeyex, on 12/21/2007, -9/+10If your robot cooks, cleans, and blows what more is there to love?
    • MacEnvy, on 12/21/2007, -5/+27If it's a true AI, who's to say the love is "fake"? How is a complex electrical response different from a complex biochemical response?
      • MindTrigger, on 12/21/2007, -3/+9Kurzweil for the win.
      • Kerrigore, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Because they will still be glorified Toasters hell bent on galactic domination! I saw it on TV.
    • aukxsona, on 12/21/2007, -5/+5To all the guys that responded...girls have tongues so we really don't need you either.
      • Kerrigore, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Who says all the sexbots will be female? ^^
    • GreyICE, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Well if the robot is self-aware, then it makes sense. It seems logical that despite the inevitable difference in viewpoint, a human and a machine consciousness will inevitably fall in love. Recognizing that love in the form of marriage only seems logical. It could simply be that marriage is someday defined as a union between two sentients.

      Really, once we have self-aware machines, its inevitable.
      • WalkerTXclocker, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Yes, but I'm pretty sure the robots they are talking about in the article will not be sentient. That's more then 50 years off...hopefully.
        • GreyICE, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Hopefully? Why? Machine intelligence could be our first opportunity to analyze a non-human intelligence (will be, unless those UFO nuts actually turn out to be... not nuts). Can you imagine what you'd learn, freed of preconceptions we don't even know we have? Its a known fact that every single culture has had preconceptions built into it that are completely taken for granted - things so basic that its not even that they're not questioned, so much as its not possible that they can be questioned in that cultures pattern of thinking. How many more must we have collectively as a species due to our limitations?

          To say that we could radically redevelop as a culture is the least of the implications. It would be a paradigm shift as great as the one that occurred in Europe near the end of the middle ages (the shift from an essentially fatalistic viewpoint to an essential rationalistic viewpoint). It would be greater than any paradigm shift in living memory. And you... don't want it to happen?
    • Leomarth, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2If a machine is programmed well enough to emulate love, would you know the difference?
    • Identity4, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7Then you haven't seen Chobits...
    • GOVStooge, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2you don't know many actual people do you?
    • qwertyuio, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Thanks Dr. Estrogen.
  • waterboy1628, on 12/21/2007, -8/+32I'm surprised it's not on the Fox News website.
    • MacEnvy, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4It was when this article first started making the rounds a month or two ago. It was also on CNN and MSNBC.
  • pmagayon, on 12/21/2007, -5/+37All you need is some WD-40 and you're all set! And it's also a plus how robots will just lay there, take it, and not bitch about it later.
    • DavidtheDuke, on 12/21/2007, -0/+18holy crap, I'm a mechanic, but I can just see a repair shop for this kinda work. WAIT! ewwww
      • tHePeOPle, on 12/21/2007, -0/+21Wow. That almost made me gag a little. If I was a mechanic, I'd build a robot to fix the sex robots.
      • WalkerTXclocker, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Um...don't doctors deal with that everyday on real people.
        • Kerrigore, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Obviously you've never worked in a computer repair shop, though.
    • justcallmegweny, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Wow, you really are a healthy individual.


  • spoiled1, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5Whichever country exports the most porn will bring out the sexbots.
  • solitonica, on 12/21/2007, -4/+21I see plenty of sex with robots in our future. However, I think it is a long way off before anyone with half a brain allows someone to legally marry an inanimate object. I think not being a living breathing organism would somehow disqualify you for marriage as seen from a traditional definition. The day that this happens is the day that a governing body decides it can no longer say with assurity that an android is not self aware and thus cannot treat it as an unliving entity for fear of affecting another thinking being in a negative way.
    • offwithyourtv, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7If gay people are still having this much trouble getting married, I'd think mechanical people have a far more difficult struggle ahead of them than something that could be worked out in a few decades. They'll probably get voting rights first.
    • MindTrigger, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5I'm confused... how can you call an animated robot, probably with passable, maybe even sentient AI, an "inanimate object"? Are you are suggesting that the mechanical technology is going to evolve without corresponding machine intelligence?
      • solitonica, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Inanimate was the wrong choice of words, my apologies. The point is that while technology is moving ahead in leaps and bounds, our understanding of human consciousness is not becoming substantially clearer. Unless things change and we somehow understand how to contemplate what self awareness truly is, from a scientific and functional point of view, we won't be able to determine whether the androids of the future are legitimately "feeling" or genuinely understanding themselves as a singular being capable of free thought.

        The tragedy at this point is that androids are likely to be entirely "fleshed out" and absolutely convincing due to their highly advanced AI. Hence my reasoning that unless we start understanding how self awareness works much quicker than we are at the moment, we will all be confused as to whether one should sympathize with an androids desires to be married or vote.
        • Verz, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3You're looking at human self-consciousness as some kind of mystic, sacred and unemulatable attribute we have. It is no more than a set of biochemical reactions sparking off inside a three-pound mass of goop. This isn't any more commendable than a hypothesized block of metal bits doing the exact same functions in the same logical patterns as a human brain would. Humans, believe it or not, are NOT the center of the universe. You think they are because your mass of goop is telling you to set "us" and "them" variables because of the natural instinct which helped your ancestors survive through times when it was necessary to only sympathize within a limited range of things. This is where prejudice and other senseless emotional ***** comes from.

          Hopefully, prejudice and emotional ***** won't be built into our future robotic people.
          • solitonica, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Your logic is flawed. Human self-consciousness is indeed nothing more "than a set of biochemical reactions sparking off inside a three-pound mass of goop." I agree whole heartedly. The flaw is that you misunderstood my approach to the subject. I am not portraying it as some kind of sacred, spiritual, mystical, or as you said, unemulatable attribute. I am merely saying we don't understand it and we aren't getting very far in doing so. Yes, we learn new things about the human brain everyday, but no matter what we learn, nobody can quite understand how a computer with a simple series of offs and ons as its foundation for discernment and choice becomes something that can actually percieve and think alone without merely being a, in essence, mindless program that follows a set of rules. We don't yet know how to achieve a singularity. All we can do is setup computers that calculate the percentage probability of a choice being correct for a given situation and it makes it.

            Also. You were quick to assume I was some over exaggerating spiritualist who believes humans are the center of the universe. I am nothing like that.
    • zeromancer, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4who the ***** is the government to tell me who/what i can or cannot marry?
      • gn0stik, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1You mean WHAT you can or cannot marry? There is no who in that equation. No point in marrying a possession. It'd be more of a sex slave than a marriage partner. I remember when we met, she was on the top shelf.
    • Leomarth, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2In the future, many, if not all, robots may be indistinguishable from humans. I wonder what they'll require then for proof of marriage eligibility?
      • offwithyourtv, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1A birth certificate, perhaps?
  • eclipse007, on 12/21/2007, -2/+86Dammit! keep it down you guys, my wife thinks I bought the robot just to clean the house!
  • lucidguru, on 12/21/2007, -2/+30Pron Stars are already having sex with robots. Hasn't anyone ever heard of the Sybian?
  • BMANZZS, on 12/21/2007, -2/+9No use for condoms! Woo hoo!
    • thatashguy, on 12/21/2007, -0/+33Oh no, the cheaper models will come with STDs..
    • frostieDude, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Provided that the robot is capable of cleaning itself.
  • WestonP, on 12/21/2007, -3/+15Well, you don't really need a computer for it to be realistic... all it needs to do is lay there and do nothing but moan every so often, just like a real woman. I'll still stick to the real ones though...
  • Lane, on 12/21/2007, -6/+1you will never be allowed to marry a robot and get equal rights simply because you could do that as soon as you turn 18 and have all the benefits of marriage. whos going to complain if you cheat?
    • s0nicfreak, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3BENEFITS of marriage? That's an oxymoron.
  • mdavis, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9Let's hope they're more Barbarella and less WALL-E.
    • bmystry, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1WALL - E can be the pet cause WALL - E looks like he could be a loyal pet
  • NeoNightmareX, on 12/21/2007, -11/+5Low...
  • spyd3rweb, on 12/21/2007, -4/+32A marriage is an agreement and contract between two consenting parties, why does the state need to be involved at all?
    • jefuchs, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2Um... yeah... vote for Ron Paul.
    • alex.will, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3I couldn't agree more. The fact that gay marriage is a hot topic in your presidential debates sickens me. It is a total non-issue.

      The anti-gay marriange candidates always say "well if we broaden the definition, where does it stop? Will people start marrying animals or robots or multiple wives?" My reply: I don't give a ***** who marries what, because I'm not a nosy ***** like you.
    • robwolf100, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1taxes.
    • brufleth, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Because it is an emotional topic. Like abortion. It gets conservatives out of their easy chairs and to the voting station to vote against it (or voting to keep it against the law). Oh and while they're at their voting station they can vote for a conservative candidate too.
    • logosx1, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0To adjudicate the distribution of property when the contract is breached (i.e., as with all contracts).
  • Ludwig, on 12/21/2007, -3/+8I guess I can tell my best friend I'll move back to Massachusetts in 2050, then.
  • ultralights, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6bender? or fembots?
    • LopsidedZebra, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4No thanks, I'd rather just make out with my Marilyn Monrobot.
  • Chirp08, on 12/21/2007, -4/+19You cant reproduce with a robot, that will be the end of civilization as we know it
    • halavais, on 12/21/2007, -1/+18Reproduction requires neither love nor marriage. And you can't reproduce with a robot YET.
      • KingGorilla, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1I for one weIcome our human robot hybrid overIords
    • fantasticFlan, on 12/21/2007, -1/+9All civilisation was just an effort to impress the opposite sex, and sometimes the same sex.
    • Leomarth, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2And, with the necessity of compensating for overpopulation coming up, there is a issue with some people not reproducing... why? And why do you think that everybody will turn to a robot? Certainly the advent of open homosexuality hasn't ended civilization as we know it. People are still having babies at a record pace.
    • blast_flame, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Immortality treatments will probably be out by then so it will be a good thing.
  • someone173406, on 12/21/2007, -0/+71Your marriage has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience.
  • ithejosh, on 12/21/2007, -2/+18"The main benefit of human-robot marriage could be to make people who otherwise could not get married happier, "people who find it hard to form relationships, because they are extremely shy, or have psychological problems, or are just plain ugly or have unpleasant personalities," Levy said. "Of course, such people who completely give up the idea of forming relationships with other people are going to be few and far between, but they will be out there."


    So basically the average digger.
  • vikki77, on 12/21/2007, -4/+15There's hope for diggers yet! ;)
  • gamer31, on 12/21/2007, -0/+20Hopefully this brings Blank robots and (Kid)nappster to download personalities for the blanks.
    • Primatelord, on 12/21/2007, -0/+19Then again, there's the danger of an army of Lucy Liu-bots!
  • bxblox, on 12/21/2007, -0/+432051: the first case of iAids is diagnosed. Followed by apple lawsuit and subsequent release of the identical yet more expensive black version.
    • gamer31, on 12/21/2007, -0/+12can't forget Electrogonorrhea: the noisy killer
    • MindTrigger, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4You aren't far off really. Nano bot viruses......
  • OEMHumanoid, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2picture the fleshlight with sas.
  • Osirus1156, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4I say high point. A Jessica Alba robot would be a very high point.
  • ipaul08, on 12/21/2007, -6/+1HILARIOUS
  • Samsong, on 12/21/2007, -1/+9Digg users finally score.
  • robszol, on 12/21/2007, -4/+8this is disastrous for evolution. Think of all the people that won't be born because some will have sex with things that can't bear children!!
    • gamer31, on 12/21/2007, -1/+9I think the people that would be having sex with a robot are the same people that won't be having sex with someone and having children to begin with.
    • FeloniusMonkey, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4Disastrous for evolution?!? Half baby/half machine sounds pretty awesome. I've seen The Terminator, and that baby would kick a pureblood adult's ass any day.
    • MindTrigger, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9If humans create machines, and as time goes by the machines and humans become one, isn't this part of our evolution? You are assuming we were made to live in these bodies without making changes. We are already playing with genes and changing people through gene therapy along with a host of other biological research. Is it so hard to believe that we will eventually make technology that can blend with us?
    • Tetraca, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1They will be rewarded with expunction from the gene pool through them not having children in the first place, making it better for the rest of us that do not engage in such activities. At this point, it'd be actually good to have a lot of people who would rather have sex/make out with robots or the same gender so then the population of the world can slowly dwindle to a more comfortable and sustainable level, and more orphans can possibly be taken care of as a side effect as they cannot bear children.
      In my opinion this is a blessing if in the correct levels, not a curse.
    • atgmac, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Don't you think there's enough humans on this planet already? The extinction of species as a direct result of humans is a disaster, this just means less people.
    • blast_flame, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1By then immortality treatments will probably be out so it will be a good thing due to overpopulation.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1How would one divorce a robot?
  • jerryterhorst, on 12/21/2007, -1/+14'Darling, I have a headache, why not use your robot?'

    lol
    • funkydude101, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1I'd be jealous.
    • s0nicfreak, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1More like "I have a headache, but you're just SOL because using a robot would be cheating!"
  • Hoogs, on 12/21/2007, -8/+7Wow, that article was very.....disturbing. I really hope I never see the day when people actually start marrying fricking robots. Mankind will have officially hit rock bottom.
    • MindTrigger, on 12/21/2007, -4/+8You seem to think that mankind will be easily distinguishable from machines, and vice versa, forever. In several decades, that line will blur, and eventually be erased. Our technology is our destiny.
      • teethman, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Wrong. Robots will be our slaves and never have rights because they are not alive. If a robot died, everyone would laugh.
        • dezman2003, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Just like blacks have no rights because they aren't people?
          • teethman, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1HOLY ***** YOU JUST COMPARED THE HISTORY OF BLACK PEOPLE TO ROBOTS AND WERE SERIOUS.

            Black people = human. Robots = machines.
        • s0nicfreak, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2PETOR (People for the Ethical Treatment Of Robots) would like to have a talk with you...
        • blast_flame, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1That is stupid for two reasons. Firstly they will probably be just as if not more as intelligent as you or me are right now (don't worry ray kurtzweil says that trends predict that the same year that AIs with double human intelligence come out will be the same year that treatments to double human intelligence come out). Secondly gives a good valid reason for a robot uprising.
  • MuletTheGreat, on 12/21/2007, -2/+11I think the general argument is that robots shall have Artificial Intelligence. Don't think of them as machines but another race of living, intelligent and sentient beings made in our image. On this premise, robots shall be able to love back and provide a non-child bearing realationship based on intellectual properties, as opposed to physical.
    Not that I'm into banging a fridge that can appreciate it or anything, but I can see the apeal of a disease and child free relationship that lasts as long as you do.
    BTW, what stops a bot from getting sick of putting up with your ***** and just moving out? Assuming they are not virtual intelligence, but true Artificial intelligence. Like any bimbo out there.
    • gn0stik, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1I think the general argument is that robots shall have Artificial Intelligence. Don't think of them as machines but another race of living, intelligent and sentient beings made in our image....

      ...That cost 80,000 bucks.

      Intellectual basis. *****. By time AI develops to a point machines are self-aware, they will be so much more intelligent than we are it would be like comparing us to chimps. And they wouldn't be interested in ***** us at that point or sitting around stroking our egos while we age to uselessness.

      Stupid.
      • blast_flame, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Actually the same year that it is predicted that AIs with double human inteligence come out is the same year that treatments to double human inteligence are predicted to come out.
      • MuletTheGreat, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1only if we build them that way. Havnt you seen AI or Bi-centenial man?
  • protogenxl, on 12/21/2007, -4/+2Well I say hell no to any sexbot made out of plastic and metal because there are basically expensive blow up dolls and I will not let myself stoop to that level, but if it was a sentient bio-android like Melfina or Naomi Armitage, I would hit that all night long.
    • KingGorilla, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1too much anime. it's just a sheII!
  • Rich711, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6So when they do will my employer have to cover my "wife's" repair and maintainence under the companies medical insurance? If I marry an American made robot can I file for a green card? Can I count my "wife" as a tax dependent? Because, this is about equality who are you to say our love doesnt fit the definition of marriage?
  • MindTrigger, on 12/21/2007, -2/+14I say as we move forward with technology, the line between machines and humans will blur. If you all want to bend your mind around this subject for real, pick up Ray Kurzweil's book "The Singularity is Near". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Ne ...

    Anyone who jacks off to porn in front of their computer screen is already beginning this journey. Welcome, friends.
    • jjcyber, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3I totally agree. I cant wait to see where this all leads too, as the groundwork for a closer human/robot society is being laid (pun?) as we speak. Btw, really wanna read Kurzweil's book as the man is a pure genius.
      • MindTrigger, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2The book is amazing, as is Kurzweil. Btw, he has a killer site that I have fed to my igoogle page. Great "futurist" articles are posted daily.
        http://www.kurzweilai.net
      • Ellipsys, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3As someone who has technically been a cyborg for a number of months, this is increasingly interesting.
  • camilos007, on 12/21/2007, -2/+14Have we learned nothing from that Futurama episode?
    http://www.videosift.com/video/Futurama-Dont-Date- ...
    • Salgat, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Actually, the episode only helped the case. All throughout the episode, Fry was extremely happy with his submissive lifelike robot girlfriend. Heck, in the end she saved his life.
  • mattwalton56, on 12/21/2007, -2/+0The fact that we are asked if this is a low or a high kind of answers the question for you, doesn't it?
  • kevcool, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3God I hope they don't program these things with the need for pillow talk. For a net improvement over the real thing, please let's start there.
  • drumkid503, on 12/21/2007, -1/+35hey as long as they don't legalize GAY robot marriage, am I right?

    high five?
  • Inferny, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Refer to this article:
    http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article09-132
    Soon, this may just be true...
  • FeloniusMonkey, on 12/21/2007, -0/+24In 2050, I'll be across the street ***** my neighbor's robot while he's at work.
  • TrojanGuy, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7"At first, sex with robots might be considered geeky"
    Um, I don't know if "geeky" is the word most people would come up with first.
    • MindTrigger, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1Plenty of people are already having sex with "robotic" devices of all kinds, and it's not even considered all that weird. Remember that what is socially acceptable now, will change as time goes by. For example, movies. "Old Rated R" and "New Rated R" are used in our house to help filter our kid from certain movies. Old Rated R is basically today's PG13 for many movies, where new Rated R movies would have been the "NC-17" 15-20 years ago had that rating existed back then.
  • sturgeongeneral, on 12/21/2007, -0/+15vote: is MSNBC ***** retarded?

    yes.
  • Metal_Hurlant, on 12/21/2007, -2/+7Anyone else thinks this article is both stupid and offensive?

    It's offensive to say "hey, they marry their gays over there, so they'll probably end up marrying inanimate objects too!". I'd expect that from Fox News, not MSNBC.

    It's stupid because marriage implies consent from both parties, and consent implies conciousness.
    Consciousness in a robot implies solving a rather difficult problem, vastly harder than mass producing walking dildos.
    Once robots achieve consciousness, marriage will rank pretty low on the list of fundamental changes to society that will result from it.

    As a side-note, "robot" comes from the Czech "robota" which means "servitude", and is likely to be perceived as a very derogatory term by artificial sentient beings.
    • krisscofield, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Most likely, artificially sentient beings would no doubt prefer the term "synthetics", as seen in many sci-fi novels and films. Aside from that, I'm certain there will be countless "synthetic rights" movements across the globe, ready to inform us what and what not is acceptable.
      • MindTrigger, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5Some people are simply not able to look at this future. They don't even realize how much their own technology use has changed in the past 20 years, let alone factor in that technological advancements are accelerating exponentially with each new generation of tech.
  • theguz4l, on 12/21/2007, -3/+4I AM RJ-542D. I AM PROGRAMMED TO BE YOUR SEX SLAVE. CAPS LOCK IS STUCK.
    • archer104, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Sounds like my human wife.
      • s0nicfreak, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Your animal wife, on the other hand, sounds like "Baaaaaaa"
  • TheSkinsFactory, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1I guess its first you ***** a robot and then you get "*****" by one when they take over ;-)
  • yfguitarist, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Patricia: I've never been with Mecha.
    Gigolo Joe: That makes two of us.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.