U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-11-2016, 08:23 AM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 1,781,424 times
Reputation: 1708

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
I don't think that American prudishness will limit the potential sales of sexy robots to any great degree. Nevertheless, this is partly why I suggested that many sexy robots will probably have at least a few other minor functions (feeding pets? greeting guests? vacuuming?) so that (for those who might need excuses) there is some plausible deniability about buying the machine just for it's sex toy functionality. Also, I suspect that Japan will beat America to the sexy robot market, and I think they could sustain a fairly robust market. This Japanese robot isn't a sex toy robot, but with some relatively minor modifications, it probably could be:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/robots-shake-check-berlin-travel-233122013.html?m_mode=multipart&_esiInclude=1

I suspect that the next major adult entertainment industry trade fair will feature some early versions of sexy robots.

I think you are probably right about replacing human jobs. When you add up all uses of all types of robots for the next five years, I'm sure that the majority of them will be replacing human labor. But if you look specifically at androids - i.e. robots designed to look human and mimic human emotions - I suspect that a significant percentage (probably a majority) will have some anatomically-correct sex toy functionality added in as a sort of bonus feature. Compared to all of the other technological challenges involved in making androids, the addition of sex-toy functionality would be essentially no challenge at all, and would add comparatively little to the overall research, development, and manufacturing costs (especially when compared to the additional sales potential when these functions are added).
Did you see the post about Google buying Boston robotics? Lol

Japan may... As a society, they seem to delve as quickly into the perverse as us. Hehe
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2016, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,227 posts, read 1,902,846 times
Reputation: 1565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
Did you see the post about Google buying Boston robotics? Lol
Yes. And I'm sure that a huge firestorm of controversy very soon will be the potential use of robots as "spies" - either in the full-blown national security sense, or in the more market-based sense of companies wanting to know your preferences so that they can more effectively promote their products to you. Personally, I don't really care what data is collected on me, but I can certainly understand the various concerns about it. I can imagine, for example, hackers using robots to upload naked images of people for use on "hidden-camera" porn sites.) I don't know what can realistically be done to keep robots from uploading data about their owners, aside from making sure they have no transmitting capability at all, which would limit some of their usefulness. Still, it is going to be a trade-off that we will all be facing very soon. What we might need are non-networked scanners near the robot that can detect transmissions and be set to instantly block these transmissions or shut down the transmitters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2016, 09:38 AM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 1,781,424 times
Reputation: 1708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
Yes. And I'm sure that a huge firestorm of controversy very soon will be the potential use of robots as "spies" - either in the full-blown national security sense, or in the more market-based sense of companies wanting to know your preferences so that they can more effectively promote their products to you. Personally, I don't really care what data is collected on me, but I can certainly understand the various concerns about it. I can imagine, for example, hackers using robots to upload naked images of people for use on "hidden-camera" porn sites.) I don't know what can realistically be done to keep robots from uploading data about their owners, aside from making sure they have no transmitting capability at all, which would limit some of their usefulness. Still, it is going to be a trade-off that we will all be facing very soon. What we might need are non-networked scanners near the robot that can detect transmissions and be set to instantly block these transmissions or shut down the transmitters.
Interesting. I wasn't going down the Google spy route but that is a good point.

Actually, even though I'm not a Google fan (hypocrite as I do use it), I was thinking of how quickly they might advance the a.i. With their resources vs. Boston robotics. Boston robotics has made great strides on the mechanical aspects but were somewhat limited on the software application (from a resource perspective).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2016, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,227 posts, read 1,902,846 times
Reputation: 1565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
...I was thinking of how quickly they might advance the a.i. With their resources vs. Boston robotics. Boston robotics has made great strides on the mechanical aspects but were somewhat limited on the software application (from a resource perspective).
Ah, I see. That's a good point. Google is on the cutting edge of machine intelligence - poised, I would imagine, to reap almost instantaneous benefits from any improvements in AI - so this merger represents possibly a very fast path to more behaviorally versatile robots. Although, from a purely technical/engineering point of view, I don't think we'd even have to wait for the benefits of this merger. As I mentioned earlier, I think we already have enough machine intelligence to carry on the minimal conversational skills and movements needed for the sex toy functionality, assuming someone would just jump in an put all of the currently-existing android technologies together into a single package. The biggest problem at the moment might be corporate secret-keeping and patent legalities - which is why mergers like Goggle/Boston Robotics might speed things up considerably.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2016, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,227 posts, read 1,902,846 times
Reputation: 1565
I'm stealing this link from a thread in the Current Events forum: By 2050, human-on-robot sex will be more common than human-on-human sex, says report - Telegraph

I'd say we are well on our way to making this a reality.

BTW: I answered "the're interesting" in the poll that you will find in the article. Apparently 72% of the people who answered the poll agreed.

I have to wonder: Of the 28% who answered "they're disgusting", how many would secretly sneak a peek under an android's skirt or pants, if they had a chance?

Another BTW: I found a reference to "sex robot developer Matt McMullen, who has made it his life's work to develop something that can turn humans on emotionally and physically." I did a search on "Matt McMullen sex robot" and got a ton of results. At some point I am going to take a closer look to see what this guy has been up to.

Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 03-11-2016 at 12:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2016, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,227 posts, read 1,902,846 times
Reputation: 1565
From the thread in current events, which is relevant here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb View Post
In 2050, I'll be in my mid 70s. I doubt I'll be having sex with anyone -- robot or otherwise.
I certainly plan on having sex in my 70s and beyond, to whatever extent possible. This would probably be one benefit of sexy robots. People who might otherwise have a great deal of trouble attracting sex partners could still have a lot of sexual fun, assuming they are not emotionally or morally disgusted by the prospect of sex with machines. (I would guess that, basically, anyone who is willing to use sex toys would probably be grateful for a robotic sex partner.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2016, 06:06 PM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 1,781,424 times
Reputation: 1708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
I'm stealing this link from a thread in the Current Events forum: By 2050, human-on-robot sex will be more common than human-on-human sex, says report - Telegraph

I'd say we are well on our way to making this a reality.

BTW: I answered "the're interesting" in the poll that you will find in the article. Apparently 72% of the people who answered the poll agreed.

I have to wonder: Of the 28% who answered "they're disgusting", how many would secretly sneak a peek under an android's skirt or pants, if they had a chance?

Another BTW: I found a reference to "sex robot developer Matt McMullen, who has made it his life's work to develop something that can turn humans on emotionally and physically." I did a search on "Matt McMullen sex robot" and got a ton of results. At some point I am going to take a closer look to see what this guy has been up to.
I'm about sexually unprudish as ghengis khan... But if it's 2050, I'll be e.d. I'll be 78 at that point and, although very healthy and Enamored with healthcare (career), I won't be taking performance enhancers. I don't fault those who do but, for me, when nature says I can't dunk a bball anymore, or my bp is elevated, and ultimately become impotent, I'm letting nature run its course with me.

So, robots/androids soon, I'm all in. If it's 30 years, I'll just view it via hologram, or feed pigeons and cats. I'll be one of those older guys
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2016, 06:14 PM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 1,781,424 times
Reputation: 1708
Hey Gaylen, I know you are a deep thinker. Do you think androids will view us as 'creator' and/or 'God' at first? Do you think androids will have the God vs atheist existential debate amongst themselves? Will it be totally dependent on the programmers original programming (whether the programmer was 'fundie' vs 'militant atheist'?)

I used those 2 extremes as the set of the programmer for a reason: neither will ever cede a middle ground. (I believe there is a middle ground but I like setting examples for people to shine the light on themselves. I don't view you in that light. We don't always agree which is great. However you don't strike me with a term I coined as 'enlightened closed minded'.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2016, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,227 posts, read 1,902,846 times
Reputation: 1565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
Do you think androids will view us as 'creator' and/or 'God' at first? Do you think androids will have the God vs atheist existential debate amongst themselves? Will it be totally dependent on the programmers original programming (whether the programmer was 'fundie' vs 'militant atheist'?)
Although we will have androids within 5 years, I don't expect androids to be full AI for at least 20 years. In other words, for a period of at least 15 years, or so, I would expect androids to "think" whatever their programmers tell them to "think". (I put "think" in scare quotes because it is really just input/output generators with randomness to simulate creativity, etc.)

We also need to make a distinction between AI and consciousness. A machine with AI might or might not be sentient (i.e., have qualitative feelings such that there is "something it is like to be" the android, or conscious (i.e., be sentient, plus have some degree of self-awareness).

Philosophers are all over the map on this stuff, but I would argue that androids will be complex enough to act a lot like they are sentient and/or conscious without actually feeling anything. In other words, an extremely complex, well-programmed machine in the form of an android with human facial expressions, and so on, could probably convince you that it is conscious, act like it feels pain, act like it is upset because you doubt it is conscious, and so on, without actually being conscious.

In other words, behaving as if conscious is not (according to me) the same thing as actually being conscious. From a moral point of view, I will always advocate that if a machine seems conscious, we should treat it with the same respect that we would treat any conscious creature. (Morally, it is better to assume conscious and be wrong than to assume non-conscious and be wrong.)

If the creators of androids want to design them to behave as if they think we are God and to behave as if they experience existential angst, then that is how the machines will probably behave, and we might find these behaviors convincing, even if, in fact, the machines don't actually experience anything (i.e., even if there is actually "nothing it is like to be" the android).

On the other hand, I think it is also possible - even probable - that machine will, at some point, actually become conscious. These machines might genuinely feel a sense of awe about their human creators, or a sense of anger (think of Roy Batty in Blade Runner when he realized that his creator could not/would not, extend his life span). These machines might genuinely feel existential angst. At this point it is hard to even make an educated guess about what machines of the future might or might not experience because we don't have any plausible theory of conscious to work with. I am working to solve that problem, and by gosh, darn, golly I'm a gonna do it.

Bottom line: I'm going to guess that eventually some machines will genuinely feel existential angst, but before that happens, there will be at least a generation or two of machines that can probably convince you that they feel existential angst, even though they do not, in fact, actually feel anything at all.

There are lots of threads in these forums in which I discuss the problems we face when trying to develop a good theory of consciousness. Here are a few of them:

A naturalistic alternative to materialism? (a theory of consciousness)

Chaos, Qualia, and Consciousness: It's time to solve the Hard Problem

Can "possibilities" affect the actual world?

I Am You: The Metaphysical Foundations of Global Ethics

Could you ever love a robot?

Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 03-11-2016 at 10:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2016, 01:38 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
9,650 posts, read 4,002,811 times
Reputation: 6192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
Do you think androids will view us as 'creator' and/or 'God' at first?
an·droid - noun

1. (in science fiction) a robot with a human appearance.
synonyms: robot, automaton, cyborg, droid, bot "a space station run by androids"

2. an open-source operating system used for smartphones and tablet computers. "I have an Android phone and I like it a lot"

Currently Androids can only view what humans have programmed it to view.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:56 PM.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top