Spectator: The sexbot apocalypse

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

14 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

I mean.... We could just teach people how to better interact with each other, and fix the wage gap/economy. Oh yeah, education too

 

Sexbots will kill us all.

These weren't the machines I thought would end mankind.........

 

John and Sarah Conner have been lying to us the whole time!

[Mr. Sinister]

 

18 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

These weren't the machines I thought would end mankind.........

 

John and Sarah Conner have been lying to us the whole time!

 

The world ending because people just wanted to get laid, makes way more sense than it should.

[Fresh8686]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Were talking about how to program consent and the line a robot has in defending itself.  I don't like that people are basically sexually assaulting sexbots in many cases, but is it a sexbot anymore if it can choose not to have sex? Dangerous path.

I'm not scared of robot consciousness personally but I understand the concern. To me, the most dangerous path in this instance is the one we're already on, which is indulging sexual and other forms of gratification through the use of objects, rather than through the natural process of connection and mutuality.

You either learn not to treat people like objects, or deal with the future where objects rise into consciousness and and then require you to go back to point A and again learn not to treat people or other complex life-forms as objects.

 

[Riggo-toni]

Sex is sex and people are people.

I am not a misogynist...maybe a bit of a misanthrope.

I don't treat women poorly or objectify them just because I watch porn anymore than I treat men badly in person just because I spend more time on message boards.  I don't have a problem distinguishing between the respect I will always have and show for actual people versus indulging in naughty victimless virtual scenarios. If there's a sexbot that gets developed that is genuinely indistinguishable from the real thing, I would probably indulge. I wish such a thing had existed 30 years ago so I never would have gotten married.  I quite enjoy living alone and the freedom solitude brings. Loneliness isn't a thing for me.

 

[Fresh8686]

1 minute ago, Riggo-toni said:

Sex is sex and people are people.

I am not a misogynist...maybe a bit of a misanthrope.

I don't treat women poorly or objectify them just because I watch porn anymore than I treat men badly in person just because I spend more time on message boards.  I don't have a problem distinguishing between the respect I will always have and show for actual people versus indulging in naughty victimless virtual scenarios. If there's a sexbot that gets developed that is genuinely indistinguishable from the real thing, I would probably indulge. I wish such a thing had existed 30 years ago so I never would have gotten married.  I quite enjoy living alone and the freedom solitude brings. Loneliness isn't a thing for me.

 

There is good sex and bad sex. There is connected sex and there is people masturbating into each other's bodies. Good sex begins way before sex even happens and ends way after sex is over. What that means is the interactions in, around, and after it are all a part of the experience, as well as the emotional history of the relationship, which gets missed with this robot sex stuff.

If you're good, I'll take your word for it. But, there are people who do not have positive or healthy experiences interacting with women and the habits and skills that come with it. Those people will continue to reinforce the bad habits and deficient skills with these toys and lose the motivation/impetus to learn them.

People forget that behaviors escalate, they are not static. First they are fine with sexing the robots, but after awhile, to get a thrill, who knows what fetishes they'll create in order to get off. It's the same thing with porn. Why? Because sex has always been about more than just orgasm, it requires other stuff to be truly satisfying, so it doesn't lead you on some weirdo curve, where you need to be punched in the face by a ginger midget in a furry costume in order to get off.

Loneliness isn't a thing for me either. I've spent a lot of my life alone and prefer it to being around people, except for my wife. She's amazing and there is no comparison whatsoever to what we have and some robotic fleshlight. I'd hate to have missed out on all that we have if I had had the choice to settle on robot sex.

[Llevron]

16 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I don’t know dude. Sex with a robot dog?

 

You wont be breaking the law and I would bet that ruins it for you doesn't it? 

[Mr. Sinister]

This thread is breaking my heart

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

I'm not scared of robot consciousness personally but I understand the concern. To me, the most dangerous path in this instance is the one we're already on, which is indulging sexual and other forms of gratification through the use of objects, rather than through the natural process of connection and mutuality.

You either learn not to treat people like objects, or deal with the future where objects rise into consciousness and and then require you to go back to point A and again learn not to treat people or other complex life-forms as objects.

 

The robots will kill people, Fresh, if they are programmed to fear for their own safety.  It's like trapping someone with limited consciousness in what's supposed to be a dildo.

 

It's tough because I'm not saying what your talking about is unimportant, reported rape rates are less then half what they were in  1993 but 20% increase since 2013.  We don't really know the scope of what's going on because how underreported sexual assault is.

 

Having said that, sentient AI is easily a top 3 risk to human existence, right up there with nuclear war and global pandemics.  Sentient AI and sexual assault should come nowhere near each, imo, its asking for it.  If you want to address that line of treating people like an object, you can't blur the line of what an object is.

[Kosher Ham]

Wouldn't this be easier? 

 

[Fresh8686]

8 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

The robots will kill people, Fresh, if they are programmed to fear for their own safety.  It's like trapping someone with limited consciousness in what's supposed to be a dildo.

 

It's tough because I'm not saying what your talking about is unimportant, reported rape rates are less then half what they were in  1993 but 20% increase since 2013.  We don't really know the scope of what's going on because how underreported sexual assault is.

 

Having said that, sentient AI is easily a top 3 risk to human existence, right up there with nuclear war and global pandemics.  Sentient AI and sexual assault should come nowhere near each, imo, its asking for it.  If you want to address that line of treating people like an object, you can't blur the line of what an object is.

I think you're underestimating how much things like desire, fear and safety are brought about by organic processes, that won't be a part of an AI system.

Further, there is more recent research on what qualities need to be present and what thresholds are needed to be reached in order to have consciousness that you might want to look into. 

http://integratedinformationtheory.org/

"Sentient AI" is still a risk, but I don't see the risk as being their going to rise up and choose for themselves to kill us all or enslave us. Instead it'll be danger coming from the increased capacity for misuse they will afford human beings, who will continue to make stupid, hasty decisions that hurt the people around them.

[Renegade7]

47 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

I think you're underestimating how much things like desire, fear and safety are brought about by organic processes, that won't be a part of an AI system.

 

 

I'm not, I think your underestimating the desire in the article for a compatible mate that is customizable. Once theres truly a market for something like that, the road to sentience will be unstoppable. 

 

From what we think we know, we are who we are from the emotions attached to our memories, but what should you expect from a robot that knows it's a robot capable of human emotions it knows have been given jus to make other people happy, not itself?

 

The brain is still a computer that can have glitches and people are attempting to learn how to hack.  It's a limited view to say fear has to be programmed once you unleash something like consciousness that evoles dynamically with the person, especially if you are trying to make the AI as human like as possible.

 

Have you ever seen Westworld, ExMachina or read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"  People like Musk and Hawkings have brought this up repeatedly that AI doesnt need to reach our full capabilities, it jus needs the ability to make decisions and ability to override the commands from another human.  Theres absolutely no good that comes from risking that technology on the Internet or in people's homes.

 

Quote

Further, there is more recent research on what qualities need to be present and what thresholds are needed to be reached in order to have consciousness that you might want to look into. 

http://integratedinformationtheory.org/

 

 

Theres reason why people want a limit on AI capabilities now instead of waiting until its reality.  Humans dont like being told what to do, what makes anyone think a robot designed ro think like us will be any different?

 

Quote

"Sentient AI" is still a risk, but I don't see the risk as being their going to rise up and choose for themselves to kill us all or enslave us. Instead it'll be danger coming from the increased capacity for misuse they will afford human beings, who will continue to make stupid, hasty decisions that hurt the people around them.

 

Like building terminators or drones that can pick their own targets?  This conversation is far deeper then sexbots, AI is not a threat to be underestimated, not when our history in science is to do something before asking if we should.

[Riggo-toni]

1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

There is good sex and bad sex. There is connected sex and there is people masturbating into each other's bodies. Good sex begins way before sex even happens and ends way after sex is over. What that means is the interactions in, around, and after it are all a part of the experience, as well as the emotional history of the relationship, which gets missed with this robot sex stuff.

I am a dude, so there is just good sex and great sex.

I don't buy into the whole making love versus sex distinction, other than being familiar/comfortable enough with a partner that there is no "performance anxiety" for lack of a better term.

[China]

 

[DCSaints_fan]

I think this is the direction society is headed.

 

Should lead to lower birth rates.  May not be such a bad thing.

[Riggo-toni]

6 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I've read that in some of the brothels where sexbots are used, some of the men customers have destroyed the sexbots during sexual activities. I fear that these destructive tendencies may carry over to destroying humans.

You gotta figure a guy that would rather pay for a cheesy sex doll (which in today's world still does not look like or feel like a real woman) rather than a real, warm, active body has some seriously ****ed up issues.

[Riggo-toni]

[Fresh8686]

1 hour ago, Riggo-toni said:

I am a dude, so there is just good sex and great sex.

I don't buy into the whole making love versus sex distinction, other than being familiar/comfortable enough with a partner that there is no "performance anxiety" for lack of a better term.

Why do guy's limit themselves with talk like this? Why do guys accept dumbing themselves and their standards down and having no or little sexual self-respect or space for sexual nuance?

I am a man, and there is a wide range of different types of sex. I'm not so thirsty that any sex is good sex. I am a connoisseur, willing to put in the work for the finest versions of what life has to offer. 

It's not about stereotypical making love vs sex or comfort/familiarity, it's about the evolution of sexual chemistry that occurs over time. Chemistry can degrade or evolve based on how a pairing relates with each other, which can change the experience of sex dramatically over the course of a relationship.

 

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I'm not, I think your underestimating the desire in the article for a compatible mate that is customizable. Once theres truly a market for something like that, the road to sentience will be unstoppable. 

 

From what we think we know, we are who we are from the emotions attached to our memories, but what should you expect from a robot that knows it's a robot capable of human emotions it knows have been given jus to make other people happy, not itself?

 

The brain is still a computer that can have glitches and people are attempting to learn how to hack.  It's a limited view to say fear has to be programmed once you unleash something like consciousness that evoles dynamically with the person, especially if you are trying to make the AI as human like as possible.

 

Have you ever seen Westworld, ExMachina or read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"  People like Musk and Hawkings have brought this up repeatedly that AI doesnt need to reach our full capabilities, it jus needs the ability to make decisions and ability to override the commands from another human.  Theres absolutely no good that comes from risking that technology on the Internet or in people's homes.

 

 

Theres reason why people want a limit on AI capabilities now instead of waiting until its reality.  Humans dont like being told what to do, what makes anyone think a robot designed ro think like us will be any different?

 

 

Like building terminators or drones that can pick their own targets?  This conversation is far deeper then sexbots, AI is not a threat to be underestimated, not when our history in science is to do something before asking if we should.

 

You're still not getting my point. Emotions, memories, sensations, impulse are all organic systems requiring multiple levels of interdependent life to function and react to things. Until robots have a gut with a bacteria population, a reptile brain and higher ordinal systems stacked on top of it governed by the intensity of connective tension, and all the other things needed for emotion, perspective, etc. than I'm not worried about machines gaining agency in that way.

If you don't have those systems you don't have impulses. You don't have front-pressure or back-pressure, you don't have conatus or ambition or identity/individuality.

How can you feel fear, if you don't have neurotransmitters like dopamine or epinephrine?

Sure, you can program a robot to give off the facial expressions and sounds that we associate with fear, but the actual chemical processes that occur behind the scenes to make that feeling really active will not be happening and the consequent actions that contrast or have chemistry to that cascade won't initialize.

It's surface level mimicry, rather than the actual event because the deep biological structures are not there, which is the take-home point I'm trying to make.
 

[Riggo-toni]

Nsfw:

 

 

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

You're still not getting my point. Emotions, memories, sensations, impulse are all organic systems requiring multiple levels of interdependent life to function and react to things. Until robots have a gut with a bacteria population, a reptile brain and higher ordinal systems stacked on top of it governed by the intensity of connective tension, and all the other things needed for emotion, perspective, etc. than I'm not worried about machines gaining agency in that way.

If you don't have those systems you don't have impulses. You don't have front-pressure or back-pressure, you don't have conatus or ambition or identity/individuality.

How can you feel fear, if you don't have neurotransmitters like dopamine or epinephrine?

 

 

I get your point, I'm disagreeing with your premise. Biology is programs and scripts done via chemistry. The body can subconsciously react to things it thinks it should be afraid of or learn what to be afraid of over time.  I dont agree that a robot designed to imitate human nature of sex best it can wont be able to tell if it's being raped or to try and stop it because it doesnt have the proper biochemicals for us to have fear. 

 

This is where the line gets blurry, and I dont get why you would want that feature and not expect it to get out of hand.  To you put that in every model of sex bot going forward and how far should the robot go to defend itself?  Again, they dont have to total copy of human mind to be capable of enough. 

 

 

Quote

 

Sure, you can program a robot to give off the facial expressions and sounds that we associate with fear, but the actual chemical processes that occur behind the scenes to make that feeling really active will not be happening and the consequent actions that contrast or have chemistry to that cascade won't initialize.

It's surface level mimicry, rather than the actual event because the deep biological structures are not there, which is the take-home point I'm trying to make.
 

 

Man oh man, IBMs Watson already cant be beaten in chess and were talking about facial expressions being the limits of this technology?

 

https://machinelearnings.co/the-rise-of-emotionally-intelligent-ai-fb9a814a630e

 

Quote

Let that sink in for a moment. Our emotions and feelings are organic algorithms that respond to our environment. Algorithms, that are shaped by our cultural history, upbringing and life experiences. And they can be reverse engineered.

 

If we agree with Dr. Harari, who is a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Dr. Tegmark, who is a professor at MIT in Boston, computers will eventually become better at manipulating human emotions than humans themselves.

Quote

Cameras in phones are ubiquitous and omnipresent, and face-tracking software is already advanced enough to analyze the smallest details of our facial expressions. The most advanced ones can even tell apart faked emotions from real ones.

 

In addition, voice recognition and natural language processing algorithms are getting better at figuring out our sentiment and emotional state from the audio.

 

ExMachina touched on the idea of if it was jus imitating human emotions to achieve its goals.  Trying to peice together predetermined sexuality traits with self-awareness was jus part of the attempt to create a profile that the AI would internally react to as part of being sentient.

 

We may process the world with synapses and biochemicals, but they will process the world using circuits and coding.  If the goal is to allow for similar conclusions with different processes...this is from 2012

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/FLAIRS/FLAIRS12/paper/viewFile/4365/4786&ved=2ahUKEwi335SRg_TiAhUOy1kKHdGmANAQFjABegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw21kqZwO8gt7CLzxFm6l-V3

[DCSaints_fan]

It may be a long time (perhaps never) to create a true android that would be indistinguishable from a human without very close inspection.  

 

However, that doesn't mean they can't get close enough for government work.  And they will have advantages that real humans don't, as well as lack disadvantages that real humans have.  Kind of like with self driving cars. 

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Kind of like with self driving cars. 

I'd really like to see a law put forth to help limit AI from replacing certain sectors of the economy to protect them.  Robots that can do repetitive work without a need for emotion could eventually replace positions like mining or construction. 

[Fresh8686]

15 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I get your point, I'm disagreeing with your premise. Biology is programs and scripts done via chemistry. The body can subconsciously react to things it thinks it should be afraid of or learn what to be afraid of over time.  I dont agree that a robot designed to imitate human nature of sex best it can wont be able to tell if it's being raped or to try and stop it because it doesnt have the proper biochemicals for us to have fear. 

 

This is where the line gets blurry, and I dont get why you would want that feature and not expect it to get out of hand.  To you put that in every model of sex bot going forward and how far should the robot go to defend itself?  Again, they dont have to total copy of human mind to be capable of enough. 

 

 

 

Man oh man, IBMs Watson already cant be beaten in chess and were talking about facial expressions being the limits of this technology?

 

https://machinelearnings.co/the-rise-of-emotionally-intelligent-ai-fb9a814a630e

 

 

ExMachina touched on the idea of if it was jus imitating human emotions to achieve its goals.  Trying to peice together predetermined sexuality traits with self-awareness was jus part of the attempt to create a profile that the AI would internally react to as part of being sentient.

 

We may process the world with synapses and biochemicals, but they will process the world using circuits and coding.  If the goal is to allow for similar conclusions with different processes...this is from 2012

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/FLAIRS/FLAIRS12/paper/viewFile/4365/4786&ved=2ahUKEwi335SRg_TiAhUOy1kKHdGmANAQFjABegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw21kqZwO8gt7CLzxFm6l-V3

First of all, I don't want sex robots to be a thing period. I was more joking about making them with boundaries to highlight my real point, which is that dudes need to stop using things like these as a crutch and connect with real women who have their own thoughts and feelings and personal boundaries.

Second, I disagree with your simplification of Biology. You won't get the same effect from biology, by using circuitry because each individual neurotransmittor and biological process matters in the emotional cascade. Each one is having connective tension with another that builds and compounds into greater orders of magnitude. If you minus that out, the actual feeling and response will be diluted, because the composition is diluted.

Notice, all the links you offered are all about machines analyzing our cues, rather than the process of them feeling it themselves.  They can do incredibly context tasks in limited settings, but that wholistic function isn't there.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ai-dangerous-why-our-fears-killer-computers-or-sentient-westworld-ncna943111

 

Quote

This reasoning is not right, according to Smith. Computers can calculate and memorize, but that doesn't mean they're smarter than humans. In fact, computers are, in most respects, no smarter than a chair. They don't have wisdom or common sense. "They have no understanding of the real world," Smith says.

 

To explain computer limitations, Smith points to the Winograd schema, a computer challenge developed by Stanford computer science professor Terry Winograd. Winograd shemas are sentences like "I can't cut that tree down with that axe; it is too thick." A human reading that sentence knows instantly that the "it" refers to the tree, not to the axe, because it makes no sense to say that a thick axe can't cut down a tree.

 

Computers have great difficulties with Winograd schemas. "A computer doesn't know in any meaningful sense what a tree is or what an axe is," Smith says. Similarly, computers aren't going to decide to rise up against humans because computers don't know what humans are, or what rising up is, or what their own survival is. Nor is there much chance that programmers will get them to understand any of these concepts in the near future. It's like imagining that your television is going to leap off its perch and attack you. It's a good science-fiction story, but not something to spend your days worrying about.

 

 

[China]

[Riggo-toni]

12 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I'd really like to see a law put forth to help limit AI from replacing certain sectors of the economy to protect them.  Robots that can do repetitive work without a need for emotion could eventually replace positions like mining or construction. 

Why? Should we go back and outlaw steampower to bring back all those artisan occupations wiped out by the industrial revolution? Should we outlaw ATMs to force bankers to hire back tellers? Do we outlaw online sales to revive the dying retail industry?

The key to improving standards of living is increased productivity, which by definition is producing more goods with less labor. People need more training / retraining rather than neo-Luddite legislation.

[Dan T.]