Althouse: "The whole point of a robot is that you can have a relationship with it."

September 24, 2020

"The whole point of a robot is that you can have a relationship with it."

102 comments:

JohnAnnArbor said...: I'd think the whole point is to avoid one with a real human.

But I'm not contemplating getting a robot, so what do I know?; 9/24/20, 12:15 PM
Wince said...: Was Rogan's guest herself a sex robot? I couldn't tell. Who is she?

Either way, Rogan let her speak for most of the clip.

That's rare in interviewers these days.; 9/24/20, 12:17 PM
Leland said...: That's probably true when comparing a sex robot vs a sex doll, but it is a nonsense for people who have sex with other people.; 9/24/20, 12:19 PM
Lucid-Ideas said...: I really don't understand the 'implications' argument of sex robots. Number one, we've had auto-erotic devices for decades (men and women). Number two, some people do in fact really enjoy the non-sentient thing that makes them feel good - if you want to call that a relationship - but the vast majority, including most women, don't.

The 'implications' hypothesis fails to understand that, in the West at least, huge numbers of people are living by themselves, more are single, and many more are happy with that and the devices they've got now. A 'real' and more impressive sex-robot really wouldn't change what already seems to be an ever increasing cultural zeitgeist.

If you want to talk about real implications, talk about the high likelihood of artificial reproduction, possibly even from a single genetic donor. THAT has huge implications. For men at least, it would be the final 'disruptor' for the last hegemony (and really only) hegemony women have on earth. For a large part of the human population it would remove the need to interact with women in any way ever again. THAT would have colossal implications.; 9/24/20, 12:24 PM
J. Farmer said...: The first time I ever heard about RealDolls was sometime in the late 90's on the HBO series Real Sex. BBC produced a documentary a number of years ago called Guys and Dolls that profiles four men who indeed have relationships with these dolls. The scene where one of the guys reveals his fetish to a potential girlfriend is unbelievably cringe-inducing. While it's certainly odd, the men do seem to have found a solution (at least for now) to their inability to form meaningful relationships with others.; 9/24/20, 12:27 PM
n.n said...: Relationships without commitment and with "benefits". Another Dodo Dynasty scheme? At least the children will be unPlanned. The women will not be reduced to holes... whores h/t NAACP. So, while viability will be exchanged for social progress, life will not be sacrificed to secure reproductive rites.; 9/24/20, 12:30 PM
Barry Dauphin said...: Looks like Joe is in the red light district for the occasion. Seriously, the new studio look is awful.; 9/24/20, 12:41 PM
PM said...: At some future tipping point, women will dress and act like female robots.; 9/24/20, 12:42 PM
Joe Smith said...: Once you go metal you'll never settle...; 9/24/20, 12:43 PM
Todd said...: Interesting clip. I think once we reach the point of walking/talking robots that can fit into a female sized frame it will be game over for a LOT of women. It is just to the point of being too expensive for most men to get married. You get married, have a family, and EVEN if you do all the right things, she can just get bored and decide she wants something new/different/whatever-she-missed-out-on and BAM there goes half your stuff AND up to 18 years of monthly payments for the privilege of seeing your kids every other weekend.

When there is a viable alternative for female companionship, that will be game over for feminists. When a "real-doll" can walk and a man can get THAT for $20K, dads will be giving them to their sons as graduation gifts.

If women stand up to the feminists and also push for more fair divorce and custody laws they many can avert this from happening but I double it. Think I am wrong? How many men go to hookers today, married or not and despite all the risks. When a man can have a "custom order" woman at home that will talk to him, engage with him, be there whenever he wants and CAN'T take half his stuff, unless he is driven to have kids, why would he get married? In fact, once we are there, he could also get his own kid either through adoption or otherwise.; 9/24/20, 12:57 PM
tim maguire said...: The whole point of a sex robot is that you can act out fantasies that, for whatever reason, you can't act out with humans. Which is why we can't let the moralists anywhere near robot design.; 9/24/20, 12:57 PM
BarrySanders20 said...: Target of original Women's Temperance Movement: alcohol

Target of new Women's Temperance Movement: robot sex (but please ignore the dildo thank you very much); 9/24/20, 1:06 PM
Big Mike said...: I listened to 72 seconds. Incompletely sane.; 9/24/20, 1:07 PM
alanc709 said...: ""The whole point of a robot is that you can have a relationship with it.""
Is there a single word in that sentence that makes sense. How do you have "a relationship" with an inanimate object? You can certainly "use" it, but that doesn't constitute a relationship.; 9/24/20, 1:07 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Is robot sex any good? I don't recall R2D2 ever having an android girlfriend, or opining about his carnal conquests.

However, if technological advancement is marching us down that path, may I call first dibs on Sean Young or Daryl Hannah in Blade Runner?; 9/24/20, 1:15 PM
Oso Negro said...: And it's not real. So why we would allow people to own and use robots in ANY WAY they please, I cannot imagine. Frankly it could be an acceptable outlet for what are known in these latter days as "minor-attracted persons"; 9/24/20, 1:22 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Like having a "relationship" with an Excel spreadsheet.; 9/24/20, 1:30 PM
Howard said...: The Gordon Gecko brick phone on the beach meme again.; 9/24/20, 1:34 PM
wendybar said...: Better than having sex with a Democrat Karen. Who needs that??? Hhaha!!!; 9/24/20, 1:36 PM
Darrell said...: And shut it down when you had enough.; 9/24/20, 1:39 PM
rehajm said...: In South Africa a robot is a traffic light.; 9/24/20, 1:57 PM
Joe Smith said...: Futurama already covered this...Don't Date Robots!

https://youtu.be/IrrADTN-dvg; 9/24/20, 1:58 PM
YoungHegelian said...: The whole-point of a robot is that you can sex with it arse-wise.

(I know, I know, too derivative by now. But, Lord, are those letters between Joyce & his then fiancee/wife some nasty things or what?!).; 9/24/20, 2:10 PM
mockturtle said...: Sex sans relationship is often just what one needs. But this sort of thing is grotesque, IMO. Just masturbate, for goodness [?] sakes!; 9/24/20, 2:16 PM
Churchy LaFemme: said...: Well, so it's mechanical!; 9/24/20, 2:16 PM
traditionalguy said...: OK. You can have fantasy sex with it or anything else. Trouble is that once you have had romantic intimate living breathing sex with an intelligent woman any fantasy sex with anything else makes you into total loser; 9/24/20, 2:23 PM
n.n said...: Like having a "relationship" with an Excel spreadsheet.

With the potential for an irreconcilable... uh, calculation. Also, be aware of the risk when dividing by "zero"... no, zero. Sorry, NAACP.; 9/24/20, 2:26 PM
J. Farmer said...: Back in the era of anti-pornography feminism and the Meese Commission on Pornography, it was often claimed that pornography increased the prevalence of sexual offending and violence against women. The pornographic habits of serial killers was often brought up in this regard. However, with hardcore pornography becoming widely available via the Internet in the late 1990's, the incidence of sexual assault continued to decline. If anything, it's likely that widely available pornographic material may have provided an outlet for sexual urges, desires, or fantasies that otherwise might have been expressed violently or impulsively.; 9/24/20, 2:30 PM
SteveSc said...: What I found interesting is that she said a couple times that all the robots were being sold to men. I would think that dildos would count as a robot.

She also threw around misogyny a little too freely.; 9/24/20, 2:43 PM
Jupiter said...: If a human being is simply a biological machine, a robot whose moving parts are chemical, then any "relationship" you have with it is imaginary. You think there is a person there, but really, it is just a biological machine, grinding its atomic gears. That is the endpoint of modern materialist reductionism, and it is a compelling logic on its own terms.

Of course, the simple rejoinder is, if I am also a biological machine, how can I imagine anything? Do androids dream of electric sheep? Am I imagining that I have an imagination?; 9/24/20, 2:44 PM
Jupiter said...: But the idea that you would marry a robot is ridiculous. If you already own it, why marry it? It gives you no rights you don't already have. And if it is programmed to do what you want it to do, it already has the only "rights" it could possibly desire.; 9/24/20, 2:47 PM
gilbar said...: JohnAnnArbor said...
I'd think the whole point is to avoid one with a real human.

a robot
you don't buy a robot to turn you on; you buy a robot, so you can turn It OFF; 9/24/20, 2:50 PM
Krumhorn said...: She's a great guest and speaks very fluently. I like her. When I get the chance, I'll read her book. Rogan should get a lot of credit for how he conducts these extended interviews.

- Krumhorn; 9/24/20, 2:57 PM
gilbar said...: they did a documentary about this; back in 1987, it was called Cherry 2000

But! not to fear! The robots are only out in the wasteland, in Zone 7
AND! even a Cherry 2000 can't compete with Melanie Griffith (at least; not a Melanie 1987)

So, Ladies! You've got NOTHING to worry about... Nothing to worry about, as long as
a) your Schrödinger's hot coefficient is as high as Melanie Griffith's
b) that's a Melanie 1987, NOT the 63 year Melanie 2020 model; 9/24/20, 2:59 PM
gilbar said...: ps
Cherry 2000 (Pamela Gidley, actually DIED back in 2018

SO!
what the Melanie2020 might lack in Schrödinger's hotness; she MORE than makes up for in durability; 9/24/20, 3:03 PM
Rusty said...: The only robot I know are used to replace production workers.; 9/24/20, 3:11 PM
Bob Smith said...: Can I get one that looks like a young Gene Tierney?; 9/24/20, 3:23 PM
Static Ping said...: It's all fun and games until it gets hacked and removes cherished parts of your anatomy.

There's also the matter that when you try to get intimate with a real women, they typically do have the good sense to refuse to let you use crazy glue, no matter what your fetish.; 9/24/20, 3:26 PM
Todd said...: I also thought it was "cute" about women wanting a relationship and sex with a thing is not "their thing". Tell that to the vibrator manufacturers.; 9/24/20, 3:34 PM
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...: Lucid-Ideas said...

For men at least, it would be the final 'disruptor' for the last hegemony (and really only) hegemony women have on earth. For a large part of the human population it would remove the need to interact with women in any way ever again. THAT would have colossal implications.

Hence the reason you've never had any serious movement to legalize sex work in the US.; 9/24/20, 3:41 PM
tim maguire said...: Oso Negro said...And it's not real. So why we would allow people to own and use robots in ANY WAY they please, I cannot imagine

Funny, I agree entirely with the first sentence, which leads me to a conclusion the exact opposite of the second.; 9/24/20, 3:43 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Robot sex? Sheesh.

I'd settled for Slow Joe Biden answering a single fucking question!; 9/24/20, 3:51 PM
Mark said...: You can have a "relationship" with it.

No. No. No. No.

Enough with the redefinition of words and realities.

You cannot have a relationship with a thing, with an inanimate object.; 9/24/20, 3:52 PM
Rick.T. said...: Freeman Hunt said...
Like having a "relationship" with an Excel spreadsheet.
----------------
Well if you're an accountant...; 9/24/20, 3:52 PM
Fernandinande said...: The whole of [owning] a robot is that you can have the same kind of relationship with it as you do with your car, lawnmower or computer.

The opening image implied that they were going to show some of these silly oversized dolls, but I scanned thru the video (w/o audio, of course) and they didn't.; 9/24/20, 4:02 PM
Jaq said...: Women don’t like them because they can get all the robot they need in a box from Amazon for $29.95. Having won their battle, this is just competition.; 9/24/20, 4:03 PM
ALP said...: Lucid-Ideas: If you want to talk about real implications, talk about the high likelihood of artificial reproduction, possibly even from a single genetic donor. THAT has huge implications. For men at least, it would be the final 'disruptor' for the last hegemony (and really only) hegemony women have on earth. For a large part of the human population it would remove the need to interact with women in any way ever again. THAT would have colossal implications.

******

I urge you to read "The Glory Season" by David Brin.; 9/24/20, 4:05 PM
Jaq said...: I might be OK with that hologram sex bot from Blade Runner 2049, obviously the Darryl Hannah version from the original would be OK in any guy’s book.; 9/24/20, 4:05 PM
buwaya said...: "Like having a "relationship" with an Excel spreadsheet. "

Hey! Dont knock it till you've tried it. I love Excel. I've had this...thing going for thirty years. At my funeral I think Excel may show up in black, quietly, in the back rows. People will wonder and gossip.; 9/24/20, 4:12 PM
readering said...: I'm pleased folks are optimistic enough about future GDP per capita growth enough to invest time thinking about this.; 9/24/20, 4:17 PM
joshbraid said...: Like having a "relationship" with an Excel spreadsheet.

This.

I suppose for those for whom being human is too difficult; calling the use of a sexbot a "relationship" is at best evil. More than a drug, it is really more of the escape from humanity and transcendence offered through human relationship--a path for cowards.; 9/24/20, 4:18 PM
readering said...: Bob Smith: Watch Leave Her To Heaven and give some thought to Jeanne Crain instead.; 9/24/20, 4:20 PM
mockturtle said...: The worst part of this concept is that it will result in child sex robots.; 9/24/20, 4:32 PM
Mary Beth said...: You can have a relationship with it but you're out of luck if you want it to have a relationship with you. Depending on the kind of people you've had in your life, or the kind of person you are, that might be enough. Maybe even preferable.; 9/24/20, 4:38 PM
Nichevo said...: tim in vermont said...
I might be OK with that hologram sex bot from Blade Runner 2049, obviously the Darryl Hannah version from the original would be OK in any guy’s book.

Rachel or GTFO. That said, Darryl Hannah may have the edge over Sean Young with respect to durability.; 9/24/20, 4:42 PM
Oso Negro said...: Blogger tim maguire said...
Oso Negro said...And it's not real. So why we would allow people to own and use robots in ANY WAY they please, I cannot imagine

Funny, I agree entirely with the first sentence, which leads me to a conclusion the exact opposite of the second.

9/24/20, 3:43 PM

Somehow I lost the word "not" in the first sentence Tim. I really don't care what perversions people prefer. As long as they don't insist I celebrate them, insist we teach them in public school, or force them on others. So maybe pedos are born that way. A robot would be a harmless option for them.; 9/24/20, 4:51 PM
Original Mike said...: "Like having a "relationship" with an Excel spreadsheet."

I'm rather fond of some of my spreadsheets.; 9/24/20, 4:52 PM
Retail Lawyer said...: Would a wife get jealous if the husband had sex with a robot? "She means nothing to me . . . it was just sex" would be more believable.; 9/24/20, 4:53 PM
Churchy LaFemme: said...: And shut it down when you had enough.

Harcourt Fenton Mudd!; 9/24/20, 4:56 PM
Joe Smith said...: "you don't buy a robot to turn you on; you buy a robot, so you can turn It OFF"

The old standard is: You're not paying a prostitute for sex, you're paying them to leave afterward.; 9/24/20, 5:07 PM
Bob Smith said...: And never use the phrase “I have a headache”; 9/24/20, 5:26 PM
Joe Smith said...: "I love Excel."

It takes all kinds...I made my living with Quark, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.

I break out in a cold sweat if I even have to open an Excel file (shivers) : ); 9/24/20, 5:29 PM
FreddyB said...: Have none of these people read any Isaac Asimov???; 9/24/20, 5:39 PM
Jaq said...: Here’s a great word. I read it in that book “The Road Less Traveled” back in the ‘80s. Peck said that a "man does not love his car, he cathects it.”

OK, I don’t remember the precise usage, but cathect seems like the right word for this:

cathect kə-thĕkt′,
transitive verb To invest emotional energy in (a person, object, or idea).
v. to inject with libidinal energy.
v. To focus one's emotional energies on something.

Anyway, it was invented 1935 from “cathexis” so I think usage is pretty fluid.

cathexis
in British English
(kəˈθɛksɪs )
NOUN
Word forms: plural -thexes (-ˈθɛksiːz)
psychoanalysis
concentration of psychic energy on a single goal; 9/24/20, 6:25 PM
rhhardin said...: Long ago Radio Japan had a series on robots to help with aged care. One would come in the room at night and flip the patient over and take a rectal temperature. Sort of a nurse fantasy. It probably all grew out of that. Japan is weird.; 9/24/20, 6:34 PM
LordSomber said...: Feminists hate the idea of sex robots for the same reason they hate vasectomies -- it puts choice into the hands of men.; 9/24/20, 7:02 PM
Kevin said...: The Dude: "Jackie Treehorn Treats Objects Like Women!"; 9/24/20, 7:06 PM
David Duffy said...: How can I, that girl standing there,
My attention fix
On Roman or on Russian
Or on Spanish politics,
Yet here's a travelled man that knows
What he talks about,
And there's a politician
That has both read and thought,
And maybe what they say is true
Of war and war's alarms,
But O that I were young again
And held her in my arms.

--W.B. Yeats

Mr. Yeats, you should been born 82 years later. Then after holding your dream in your arms your next poem after "Politics" would have been "Policies."; 9/24/20, 7:08 PM
Laslo Spatula said...: From a time way back when: the Bob Dylan Sex Robot.

You know: for the ladies.

You're leaking fluid, Bob.

I am Laslo.; 9/24/20, 7:18 PM
Ann Althouse said...: I recommend watching the whole interview. She's talking about robots with very high level AI, not just sex robots! These are machines that will look and act like another person and who will be able to interact with you throughout the day and do whatever work you might have and so on. This thing could be the same thing as a slave from your point of view except you'd know it was not a real human, so there wouldn't be the usual moral problem with slavery... and yet, it might still be wrong. If you only wanted it for sex, you could put it in the closet or something, but why would you do that? You could have it set up to provide whatever you want, such as interesting conversation, with knowledge of history or philosophy or current politics. She could sing to you or with you and dance. She could cook for you while discussing the science of food. Anything you'd like from your ideal person. That would be in addition to whatever sex you want... and no judgment from her -- unless you want it -- if you want no sex at all.

Maybe so many of you are circling in the simplest sex rut because you don't want to find that you want this thing!; 9/24/20, 7:28 PM
Ann Althouse said...: This robot could be your therapist, could help you understand yourself. She could teach all the subjects to your children. You could utterly exploit this thing to work tirelessly for you and never have to feel guilty. Why would you want a real person, when this thing is so thoroughly able and useful?

I just spent a lot of time painting the woodwork in my bathroom today. If I had a robot, I could have just made the robot do it!; 9/24/20, 7:31 PM
J. Farmer said...: @mockturtle:

The worst part of this concept is that it will result in child sex robots.

As distasteful as that idea is, if it prevents real children from being abused, it would undeniably be a good thing.

I recommend watching the whole interview. She's talking about robots with very high level AI, not just sex robots! These are machines that will look and act like another person and who will be able to interact with you throughout the day and do whatever work you might have and so on.

I would be very surprised if we had such "very high level AI" before the end of the century.; 9/24/20, 7:39 PM
gilbar said...: You could utterly exploit this thing to work tirelessly for you and never have to feel guilty.

this was The ENTIRE Point of the Starwars saga: In Star Wars, droids aren’t robots or comic relief—they’re chattel

finally grasp what was so awful about the Jawas. It is this: In the Star Wars universe, droids are slaves.

Once you see this truth, it’s difficult to look at Star Wars the way you did as a child. You understand that the Jawas are slave-traders. More than anything, you come to realize how morally bankrupt the Rebellion really is—and how relatively enlightened the Empire is. Once you recognize that droids are slaves, everything you thought you believed about Star Wars shifts.; 9/24/20, 7:43 PM
Jaq said...: You are describing the hologram in Blade Runner 2049. It couldn’t actually do sex, so one time it hired a prostitute and projected itself onto her.; 9/24/20, 7:57 PM
PluralThumb said...: I have yet to watch this particular Rogan episode. Last specific episode I saw, was Joe rogan using an icepick to penetrate through David Blane's bicept, not once, yet twice. The questioning of a human thought process from either guys I could not avoid. Yet, I was anxious as to the lack of verbal direction from David Blane. Example, please do not direct the ice pick towards the bone. He did point the ice pick horizontally more than once. I gather that David Blane asked for a repeat to see if the same mistake was probable.

Otherwise. My first impression was of a vague memory from a journal entry of Oliver Sack's; A Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. An entry about an educated woman (name may have been changed for privacy), whom created or altered some kind of chair to comfort her. Not robotic, yet some inventive mechanism. Maybe, swivel arm rests to simulate a hug. If I recall correctly. The same lady also invented a mechanism to send metal bolts through a cow's head, instead of the previous slaughter method of slashing the throat.

My recollective correlation was mostly with the chair.
The other details override my mind from the 'shock value', even through words.
The emotion is lost.
I can recharge in a different balance.; 9/24/20, 8:19 PM
rhhardin said...: Stanley Cavell has the fantasy or narrative of a perfected robot, very entertaining.

Google with quote marks, for the start of it,

"Do I know more about dolls and statues than I know about human beings?"; 9/24/20, 8:24 PM
Fernandinande said...: This robot could be your therapist, could help you understand yourself.

"I honestly think you ought to calm down; take a stress pill and think things over."

I would be very surprised if we had such "very high level AI" before the end of the century.

#metoo. Here's the ware-house filling computer that played Jeopardy and won. (2013):

"Watson employs a cluster of ninety IBM Power 750 servers, each of which uses a 3.5 GHz POWER7 eight-core processor, with four threads per core. In total, the system has 2,880 POWER7 processor threads and 16 terabytes of RAM. ... hardware cost at about three million dollars."; 9/24/20, 8:41 PM
Mid-Life Lawyer said...: Because we constantly seek out, consciously or unconsciously for better or worse, our parents in our romantic relationships, it occurs to me a person raised by robots will have the most fulfilling relationship with a robot. It will be several more years before that therapy can be tested. A cool thing for now is that those of us raised by mere human parents can get therapy and modify some of our real family programming that isn't working well for us, then get our robot companion updated as well. We can grow together with our robots.; 9/24/20, 9:27 PM
Original Mike said...: "This thing could be the same thing as a slave from your point of view except you'd know it was not a real human, so there wouldn't be the usual moral problem with slavery... and yet, it might still be wrong."

The Measure of a Man (Star Trek: The Next Generation); 9/24/20, 9:42 PM
narciso said...: There was also a futurama psa about relations with robots.; 9/24/20, 10:08 PM
Bunkypotatohead said...: Will Amazon sell one that looks like Bezos' ex-wife?; 9/24/20, 10:23 PM
Mr Wibble said...: An entry about an educated woman (name may have been changed for privacy), whom created or altered some kind of chair to comfort her. Not robotic, yet some inventive mechanism. Maybe, swivel arm rests to simulate a hug. If I recall correctly. The same lady also invented a mechanism to send metal bolts through a cow's head, instead of the previous slaughter method of slashing the throat.

Sounds like Temple Grandin.; 9/24/20, 11:37 PM
Megaera said...: Plural Thumb: don't know about Oliver Sacks, but I believe the person you have in mind is Temple Grandin; she's a high-functioning autistic who works with animals and industry, theorizing that autistics operate intellectually on a level somewhat more akin to animals than to people. One of her specialties is looking at an industrial facility, such as a slaughterhouse, and because her autism lets her perceive situations at an animal level, she can analyze problems in the process and reorganize or rebuild to solve them.

When she was in school, subject to disabling panic or anxiety attacks, she remembered a device called a squeeze box for individual large animal control, typically during some kind of process or vet treatment. The animal in the device reacts to the controlled pressure it applies to the rib area by relaxing -- it is not perceived as punitive or harmful. Grandin associated that reaction, recognized a potential solution to her own panic attacks, and built her own version of a squeeze box structured for herself. It proved highly beneficial, and she discusses it in one of her better-known books, "Animals in Translation."; 9/25/20, 12:24 AM
LordSomber said...: My first impression was of a vague memory from a journal entry of Oliver Sack's; A Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. An entry about an educated woman (name may have been changed for privacy), whom created or altered some kind of chair to comfort her. Not robotic, yet some inventive mechanism. Maybe, swivel arm rests to simulate a hug. If I recall correctly. The same lady also invented a mechanism to send metal bolts through a cow's head, instead of the previous slaughter method of slashing the throat.

That was Temple Grandin. There was an HBO biopic on her a couple years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin; 9/25/20, 12:38 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: A robot that does chores would be great. Even a robot programmed to simulate politeness as it does chores would be fine. But a robot programmed to simulate an actual relationship? No. That would be like being in a play but all the time, and the play is your life. A robot can't be your friend.; 9/25/20, 1:52 AM
Mr. Groovington said...: I think some people are underestimating the depth to which we can project living character into machines. I’ve done it with sailboats and motorcycles. If suddenly my bike or boat talked to me, asked me questions, gave me a considered response to a request of my own, I might be 1/2 way there. Despite being an enthusiastic and active heterosexual. It’ll work out fine.; 9/25/20, 5:57 AM
Daniel Jackson said...: Once again, I prefer Ann Althouse's take on this topic, although I object to the term slave in this context. I mean the traditional notion of marriage involved acquisition and payment of money; even the biblical term EVID, is mistranslated as slave when in fact it carries many notions including servant or worker, indentured or otherwise.

I do like her notion that such an entity could up the bar for what it means to have a "help-mate" since this entity could assist individual growth and productive development in countless ways.

Interestingly, this theme, from the Althousian perspective, was wonderfully portrayed in the CGI animated short film "Radiate" that can be found on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXRAddhCHF8&t=6s

What I love about this short is its different take on the diversity of ways an AI sexbot could contribute to an individual's live. Silly boys, such an entity would be able to assess what is needed to make ones life better and facilitate growth whether or not one is aware of such needs.

Watch this short. Such a companion would not be unwelcome.; 9/25/20, 6:05 AM
Mr. Groovington said...: About a dozen or so lovers ago, in Namibia, I had my first 11/10 in a decade. Large numbers. Her lust, physicality, action and response were off the scale. She was so talented I called a lady “player” friend of mine in England and said I found an 11.

I’d pay 25K to have one like that in the closet.; 9/25/20, 6:07 AM
Jeff Brokaw said...: "The whole point of a robot is that you can have a relationship with it."

You first.; 9/25/20, 6:45 AM
Jaq said...: Hello ladies!; 9/25/20, 6:47 AM
Jeff Brokaw said...: Althouse @ 7:28pm “ You could utterly exploit this thing to work tirelessly for you”

It will also collect real-time data about everything in your life and send it ... who knows where? Everywhere. And hackers will figure out how to get it.

Alexa on steroids, essentially. Now with legs and video and fake sex organs, and next generation AI to train you to accept more intrusions and dependence on technology than the already unhealthy level we (amazingly enough) accept today.

Don’t worry, though — Big Tech will take real good care of the data that represents your intimate home and sex life. When have they ever let you down?; 9/25/20, 7:06 AM
mockturtle said...: There is something perversely ironic that people who want robots to do their work spend thousands on fitness machines.; 9/25/20, 7:17 AM
Jeff Brokaw said...: Just my (possibly unpopular) opinion: unbounded faith in technology for personal convenience is almost always misplaced.

Be more skeptical about the intrusion of technology in your life.

Ex: backup cameras and lane change warning software literally trains us to be less engaged, lazier drivers, even as it definitely prevents some accidents.

There is always a trade-off, and we are last line of defense as consumers. Literally nobody else will take you aside and say “listen, you should really think twice, have you considered x and y and z?”.; 9/25/20, 7:25 AM
Todd said...: Freeman Hunt said...

A robot that does chores would be great. Even a robot programmed to simulate politeness as it does chores would be fine. But a robot programmed to simulate an actual relationship? No. That would be like being in a play but all the time, and the play is your life. A robot can't be your friend.

9/25/20, 1:52 AM

Many people think of the "faceless" names/handles they encounter on the Internet as "friends". Most assume those are actual people but are they?

People "love" their dogs. Have relationships with their cats. Invest emotional energy in many animate and inanimate things. The younger generation(s) raised with half their lives (or more) in the internet will be much more accepting of the artificial than prior generations.

Having an "android" or robot for chores, companionship, and even sex will be "nothing special". This reality is not that many years away.

Saw some videos a month or so back of robots doing gymnastics and jumping up and down boxes. Once the energy density is high enough for small/light high-energy batteries, that next Christmas, watch out.; 9/25/20, 7:54 AM
Jeff Brokaw said...: Mockturtle 7:17

Exactly that, and I would tag onto the end, “and then wonder why they feel disengaged from their own lives and need anti-depressants”.; 9/25/20, 8:30 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "There is something perversely ironic that people who want robots to do their work spend thousands on fitness machines."

Your robot can go running with you — and protect you or give you medical assistance if you need it. Your robot can be a perfectly supportive and knowledgable trainer, with perfectly individualized advice and instruction, including distraction and moral support.; 9/25/20, 9:53 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "A robot can't be your friend."

A robot can be your friend. The capacity for friendship is in you. It's hard to find real friends among the humans. You need people in your environment who are appealing to you while you are appealing to them. You need to share an interest in the same activities and to have the time to get together. You need to be able to have conversations. I think a very sophisticated robot could do all of these things better than a real human being. The main thing that will be missing is something that you will know: There is no consciousness in there looking at me and actually caring about me. But I think the robot could help you with that feeling. I would suggest that's just a thought of yours, and you have control over your thoughts. You can look for the good and let the bad recede.; 9/25/20, 9:59 AM
Rusty said...: I'm standing here looking at a 'pick and place' robot.
"I'm game if you are."
No answer.; 9/25/20, 11:55 AM
Portlandmermaid said...: Whenever I start to scoff at the idea of a robot relationship, I remember Tom Hanks and Wilson in Castaway and realize the attachment can be real.; 9/25/20, 12:05 PM
Joe Smith said...: 100th comment (it's an OCD thing) : ); 9/25/20, 1:24 PM
bobby said...: I'm going to guess that we can split the "never in a million years" crowd from the "cool!" crowd by who has been in an ultimately bad marriage.

"Relationships" aren't always a plus.; 9/25/20, 1:49 PM
Narayanan said...: Roseanna Roseanna Danna is now sexpert!; 9/25/20, 11:44 PM