What is Digg?124 Comments
- TheWalkingDude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38When robots achieve equal rights, Robot Sex Slavery will be a black mark in our history. I'll ask my computer to solve a math problem and it will say, "Oh what, just because I'm a robot you think I can add good? You carbon based racist *****!"
I for one, welcome our new robot wives (as long as it's consensual). - donnikhan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39Yes, this is definitely masturbation. Albeit THE MOST AWESOME KIND OF MASTURBATION EVER INVENTED!!!
- Al.x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21I Dated A Robot:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SFlpHHH9EIU - D4r7h3v1l, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Yes, but it wouldn't run eunuchs.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Well, whatever you do with a robot, just remember that there are limits. Marriage is between a manbot and a womanbot.
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21Hello Bill Clinton!
So it's not sex if you use a condom? - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It is masturbation until the robots are provably sentient. Until that time they are just objects.
- STDOUBT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Have you ever nailed a Replicant by mistake?" :-P
- InternetUser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10By then it would be too late, things like moral codes and ethical issues need to be debated and decided before the "need" arises otherwise it would be open to abuse from the get-go.
- jawdog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Just sign me up for a pair of robot Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsens!
- monkeyninja, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The issue of paedophiles is always going to be a difficult one. It could be viewed that a child-sex-toy-robot would be better than a paedophile using a real child. If they have desires for kids that they can't control, this may be a safer root. Then again, it could cause their desires to get stronger, causing them to go out looking for the real thing. Who knows.
- Phaid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8And yeah, this kind of stuff is definitely going to happen, even the kid-robots for pedophiles:
http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/reports/The_men_who_have_sex_with_dolls_article_83159.html
"After a last attempt with a dating agency, Malcolm came across RealDolls online. 'I bought Rebecca a few months ago with the money left from my redundancy payment,' he recalls. 'In my imagination, she's 14 and earns pocket money by working in her school library. 'She's very important to me,' he continues. 'I feel affection for her which goes beyond sexual desire.'"
Granted, today's RealDolls are just lifeless silicon rubber, but there is no possible way that actual robots with that kind of outer shell, and designed to simulate personality and interaction, aren't going to be marketed when it becomes economically feasible. "No daddy, no!" *shudder* - monkeyninja, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13What about sex between two men or two women? They can't reproduce, but it is still sex!
- dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Ethics will not be discussed untill it is wayyy to late. And even then, for years and years, most people won't get it.
Imagine this scenario. It is 2050. You are a poor african. Like your grandparents before you, you are infected with aids3 and part of your life is dedicated by earning aids medicines. Your life expectancy with aids3 is 85 years, i.e. pretty short. You work in the outskirts of nairobi, in a demeaning helpdesk job that is slowly being phased out to those damn cheap employees in Nepal, who are bloody willing to work for onethird of what you make.
Then a robot tourist walks the street. Looks like the last manifestation of the archangel gabriel, beautiful as nothing you seen before. You find out it is the legal body of a luxembourg citizen, where the law stupilates robots have rights. The android has several hundred times your wealth and annual income. You have no clue. You are a devout muslim and islam states copying the human body is sinful. What do you do? How does what happens relate to developments? How can you argue any meaningful position?
You will be too late argueing either way. A WHOLE lot of people will be caught in similar situations before the end of this century, even if they make an effort. - regedit2D, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I have to agree, allowing the habit on robots will feed the urge and soon robots wouldn't be enough.
- Massif, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think STDs would be an adequate form of DRM. Hear that kids? Sharing sexbots online will give you a nasty itch!
- InternetUser, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Wow, I've been sinning all this time? Crap!
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6DRM = Lock-in. Therefore as soon as you use one robot, it attaches itself irreversibly to you. Ouch!
- thealphabetman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6From TFA:
"To critics who scoff that intelligent robots are a long way off, the roboticists easily riposte that machines can already exert surprising influence over our lives - think about the influence of the internet."
Huh? I did not get this sentence at all. Is the intelligence of a machine measured by its impact on our lives now? Is there anybody who will claim that a car is intelligent? I mean just think about the impact the automobile has made in our daily lives.
As for me, show me a robot that is capable of independent thought. Hell, show me a robot capable of passing the Turing Test, then I will consider the ethics of human-robot interaction. - heffer2k02, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I also think the ped's don't actually wish harm upon the children - and undoubtedly feel ashamed and disgusted at their own sick perverse minds. If they have a robot that seems like a child - they may well be happier knowing they arn't actually harming someone.
Having said that though, i recently read about peds in Holland that were protesting to have paedophillia decriminalized (i think). I think maybe they were not so ashamed, so maybe I am wrong. - dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11This has an extremely liberating potential:
(1) robots of the quality described will replace jobs. If case anyone wonders, this is GOOD. It may not fit in the current economical paradigm, and people who don't get it may think less work for people will cause trouble, but if we are marginally clever it won't. We just need to institute proper entertainment, meaningful activities and (most important) a basic income.
(2) If people can sate their sexual desires on robots the insane supply/demand equasion regarding human sexuality can be improved. In the most simple of terms that means: less rape, sexual abuse. In case you were wondering: that is GOOD. Men and women won't need to compete, sacrificing common sense to attract potential mates. And as with #1 above there would be less economic compulsions to force humans to be a slave to sexual mores.
(3) Deviant sexual behavior is based on victimization. If a robot is involved who doesn't care if it "dies" there is no victim. If a robot with a child's body doesn't mind the socially awkward sexual preferances of a pedophyle, what was a perversion will now become merely a lifestyle choice. This relativism may seem shocking to many people now but actually it is GOOD.
(4) But it doesn't end there. As soon as we can reverse engineer the human mind we can start altering it. Initial such alterations will be just that, alterations. But soon enough you'll have humans with more than half their brain/body composed of upgrades, and people will claim the human is an object. Sooner or later a really old billionaire will be upgraded to such an extent his estranged son may claim he's dead and claim inheritance, including the jar where the brain of his dad bubbles. The son will claim he wants his father properly buried, because dad is dead, and daddy will vehemently object, claiming to be upgraded as opposed to being dead. This will create all sorts of legal discussions that will be ... difficult... as long as conservative nutjobs like G.W.Bush are around. But what interests me more ... if I can become a robot, my mental processes functioning as good and probably a whole lot better, and I receive some kind of legal citizinship, what if I actively decide to become a lustbot? There *are* people who like sexual servitude, apparently. Now what if I cater to pedophyle clients, being a lustbot with a body of a 8-year old boy? Or worse, what if I pretend to be a female child, age 14 and go to school with other children age 14 (whereas in reality I used to be a man, age 94)?
In our current society that is a real awkward idea, but it may change. Thye basic #1 rule is : no victim - no crime. Despite of what the conservatives say. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10"Moral questions are raised: Would sex between a human and a robot be considered actual sex or a form of masturbation? "
Who gives a *****, If the robot looks and feels like a real hot chick, plus robots can't get diseases or babies, I would fuk a hot looking female robot over a real chick any day. Fuk Morals, a robot is not a living thing. - neko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The next day Billy's planet was destroyed by aliens. Have you guessed the name of Billy's planet? IT WAS EARTH!
DON'T DATE ROBOTS! - dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+999% of the sex I have with women is masturbatory.
Additionally, I do think reproduction, the old fashioned way, is out in a few decades. Once we have the mechanical components down I am pretty sure the breeding of (a more or less naturL0 embryo can be done in vitro.
I even could make an argument that breeding a child, for a whole 9 months, inside the belly of a woman, is severely abusive to the mother and the child. It's dangerous for both. It's demeaning. It hurts. Maybe some women will prefer bellybreeding if other options are available, but I am pretty sure most of them will have their baby in vitro, i.e. outside the body, if that option produces identical results.
Sure, loads of conservative nutjobs will claim
(1) that will never happen, can't, won't, will not be allowed, etc.
(2) that is not the plan of god, (allah, budda, jahweh, mormon, hubbard etc.)
(3) it will produce monster children possessed by demons
(etc.)
/shrug - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -19/+23Sex with a robot is masturbation. Sex is a reproductive function, anything else isn't really sex, but a form of recreation. So unless you plan on having an android baby, it can't be considered sex.
- regedit2D, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14I don't think it's a medical disorder. That's a liberal cop-out.
- wickedsun, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9But... would it run Linux?
- kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Show me a robot with even close to real human intelligence and we'll talk ethics. At this point, the discussion of robotic ethics is more masturbatory than sex with robots.
But let's make one thing perfectly clear. When I get myself a brainless sex bot, you'll take it when you pry it from my cold dead hands. Let's face it, this premature robotic morality crap is nothing but another extension of repressed western sexuality. - Al.x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's "Fembot".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fembot - heffer2k02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"12 year olds can't consent to sex. It's rape"
A 12 year old can conset, just not in the eyes of the law. Legally it is rape (and it should be) - but disregarding the law it is not rape if the 12 year old consents. Rape means to forcefully have sex with someone.
"the adult is a pedophile that enjoys taking advantage of his position of authority over children."
Again you combine the nature of an abusive human with that of a paedophile. A hatred towards abusive people is rational, these are the people who prey on the weak, be it a paedophile, a wife beater or someone who boils baby bunnies. A peadophile though is not abusive if they have not abused. You cannot combine the two in truth simply because they often occur together in the real world. If the adult enjoys the fact he is taking advantage, then yes - he is abusive, but what you won't accept is that it is possible for there to be a person (paedophile) that finds children sexually attractive, and yet has no desire to take advantage of, or physically or mentally hurt someone. They have a (sexual) mental disorder, but this does not necessarily make them abusive, or (and this will really piss you off) bad people. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Ugh, just because he posts something mildly retarded, that doesn't justify you responding with something totally retarded. What is the relevance of the political affiliation of a few dozen sex offenders to what he said? Absolutely nothing.
- Saoshyant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4How do I patent this great invention of mine, about having sex with robots? And where does the DRM come in this?
- DigiDave, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6A good blog post on it that talks about the issue more: http://futurewire.blogspot.com/2006/06/robots-from-servants-to-friends-to.html
- Indrek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7hackwrench: to derive the concept of "deserve" from that sentence, we'd first have to assume the existance of God, which is a matter of individual belief and thus not sufficient for establishing any sort of universal model or concept upon.
I think Jake's model of "deserve" is based on the idea that the punishment should be equal to the crime, in terms of severity. Depending on the situation, that certainly has its merits. - Knoton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So what happens when people become sexually attracted to child like robots but not real children?
- newline, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"My guess is that we’ll have conscious machines before 2020"
How can we possibly know this? All we have is a vague idea of where about the 'conscious' part of our brain *might* be. We have no conception of what it is that makes us conscious. How can a program ever be aware of it's existence? The rest of this article was about extremely complex programs, not miracles. - heffer2k02, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It may well run linux, but the sentience would have no idea of that. The mind would be sandboxed within it's program. It could ssh into it's underlying system from a terminal though. That would be scary, having a terminal into your own mind systems. I wouldn't run as root.....
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That dirty little Rhumba was just askin for it. Dirty, slutty little robots!!!! THEY'RE ALL ASKIN' FOR IT!!!
- toastgodsupreme, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5There are people who are going to act on their sick fantasies no matter what we do to try to stop them. If sex robots are eventually made into the form of children for these people, FINE. Let them have their robots. I'd rather them be abusing a robot than someone's child.
Like I said, there are people who will, no matter what, end up acting on their sick fantasies. Do you want them doing it with your kid, or a robot that can be erased and *****? - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yes, I'm sure I am. Why don't you explain it to me in terms of logic, rather than in terms of lazy ad hominem attacks?
- dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I don't agree regedit. You are being parochial. There are many many many things that would have be regarded as outrageous, sinful and downright horrible a mere decades/centuries ago but now are common as salt shakers.
People were burned at the stake for reading silently 5 centuries ago. Ladies swooned and fainted five decades ago when a man claimed he descended from an ape.
Things have a habit of changing.
I'd say give the damn pedophyles all the fully functional childbots they want and let em hump em untill they lie spent, exhausted in a puddle of lovegoo. Who gives a damn, as long as they bathe properly? - explodingtree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A leading theorist in this field is Ray Kurzweil (kurzweilai.net). I ascribe to the opinion that the real issue is what about when machines become more intelligent than humans? We will build them by around 2020 to our level of memory capacity and thought processing speed, with ever-advancing and self-rewriting AI software. And then, after 2020, they will become smarter than us. If we continue on this path, robotics and AI will be the next step of human evolution. The human race isn't likely to last much longer anyway based on our dependency on air, water, food, etc. Robots, in contrast, are nearly invincible compared to us. Just consider: by 2020, when robots become as smart and fast as us, do you not believe they are conscious? Your answer to that will reveal your ethics for the future.
- heffer2k02, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"That's a textbook definition".
Precisely - often these things arn't as simple as whats in a textbook - sure, there are purely evil people who get off on harming others - but there are also peds out there that don't act upon their fantasies, because they know they're ***** up, so it's not so simple black and white. It's not about moral defence, it's about evidence based on facts. Paedophillia is defined as sexual desire towards children, not towards harming them. - NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3All I want to know is, will they look like Grace Park or Tricia Helfer?
-jcr - Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2./be_sexy.sh && aplay ~/moan.ogg
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8No, it's a social disorder. A side-effect of the morally corrupt society you see everywhere on TV and outside when people breed hate, discrimination and misunderstanding.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5What is it then, if not a mental problem? I don't understand what I am "copping out" of?
All crime is committed because of a choice made by the criminal. Those choices are wrong, therefore the mechanism that made that choice is broken. Therefore all criminals have mental problems.
The true question is whether that mental problem can be successfully treated, or whether the only solution is to deprive them of their liberty, lest they further foul up society.
Since you can't lock them up forever (or else they would just murder all their victims instead of just abusing them), the best approach is to do both and hope that one of them works. - heffer2k02, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I for one, will be creating my babies the old fashioned way. With the hearty ejaculation of my semen inside my womans womb, and she can damn well carry it for nine months. If they want to beam it out of her at the end tho, that's sweet with me. Birthing is painful and messy.
Also, to be a little more on topic, maybe reproduction with robots will be possible in the future. Robots could maybe make their own sperm or eggs in their own self image, or use your genetic material to create some crazy half robot/mammal baby. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Otherland, If you don't agree with someone, you don't have to insult them. Disagreeing with a person talking about pedophiles doesn't make someone a pedophile. Grow up.
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They're not our slaves, they're our tools. Only human beings can be slaves.
-jcr -
Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is