|
8
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by It was bound to happen and certain science fiction enthusiasts around the world are probably chomping at the bit. What are we talking about? Sex with robots, of course. Scottish chess master David Levy is the latest to tout this potential aspect of our future world in his new book Love and Sex with Robots. Levy views future carnal knowledge of robots optimistically, saying the development of artificial-intelligence will mean "[g]reat sex on tap for everyone, 24/7." When will this all happen? According to Levy, if you're currently under 35, you will, in all likelihood, live to see robot love.
Despite an attitude of revulsion sure to be adopted by some, Levy believes the advent of sexbots will be overwhelmingly positive as the "lonely" and "miserable" will "have an alternative that satisfies them without doing any harm to other people." Naturally, large questions remain. Despite rumors on the net that a German scientist has invented a state-of-the-art sexbot, some are concerned about technology's ability to accurately mimic human physiology. Others are worried that sexbots may put good old-fashioned prostitutes out of business. And finally, a perhaps smaller minority may be concerned about what happens when super-advanced sexbots invariably turn destructive and/or evil.
Add a Comment (16)
Email This
Message Author
"lonely" and "miserable" will "have an alternative that satisfies them without doing any harm to other people."
Hm.. I'm not sure the 'bots' would be any more effective than any other methodology. Regardless of how 'realistic' they are--they probably still wouldn't provide the necessary realism for pedophiles, rapists and other sexual deviants need in order for their particular psychological disfunction to be appeased.
Would it end prostitution? Perhaps, but there are certain members of that 'community' who derive their own satisfaction from providing sexual favors in return for compensation.
I'm not talking about having them simulate their preferred variety of victim or the scenarios they desire, just that they might be a therapeutic tool more patient, willing to face risks, and put up with such a person as they gradually bend them back to acceptable behavior.
Although you might be right. I've heard that pedophiles in particular have a dismal recovery record. On that, there's promise of early identification and correction with brain scanning. CBC Quirks and Quarks had a really good podcast on Neuroscience and the Law. For example, there is some evidence that brain damage in a certain region of the brain is what drives pedophilia.
As for prostitution, I think that the human variety will be driven out of business (and subsequent human trafficking) by lower cost droids, especially since they theoretically shouldn't pass on a disease to you. Additionally, if programmed correctly, it would end the urge for this type of behavior and this type of furtive behavior would be obviated. On the other hand, I guess some people get into the sneaking around aspect of it, but at least the human victims will be removed.
Here's another important implication of realistic, responsive droids: humans driven out of the customer service industry altogether. You already see "self-checkout" aisles at the grocery store and automated messages with your credit card company. I predict that advances in chatterbot technology will continue to gradually push people out of the lower tiers of the service industry.
Here's another important implication of realistic, responsive droids: humans driven out of the customer service industry altogether.
I think that'll happen regardless of whether there are "realistic, responsive droids". It's already happening. You mention self-checkout aisles at the grocery - no droids there.
There's already been a noticeable drop in the use of humans to do a lot of tasks - assembly line work in particular. I recall seeing an article where a fast food chain (McD's maybe?) had built a prototype restaurant that had no staff - it was basically a big vending machine that cooked the food.
And it's not just minimum-wage work that's affected. Synthesizers have put a lot of musicians out of work, for example. It used to be that recording a commercial jingle required assembling a half-dozen or more musicians to play all the music and sing - now, one guy with a synthesizer does the whole thing. The whole green-screen/CGI aspect of movies has made cut-backs in the number of set construction laborers needed on movie sets, too.
There's already been a noticeable drop in the use of humans to do a lot of tasks - assembly line work in particular. I recall seeing an article where a fast food chain (McD's maybe?) had built a prototype restaurant that had no staff - it was basically a big vending machine that cooked the food.
But, if the education of our young doesn't keep pace with the loss of menial labor jobs; we'll end up with even more of an 'entitlement' sector (for want of a better term) than we have now. Like now, it will be mostly made up of people who can't find a job because the only skill they have is flipping a burger, running a cash register, doing housekeeping, etc. Also, what do we do with the sector now who are employed in some of these types of jobs. I'm thinking of those folks with mild to moderate Downs Syndrome, or other developmental disorders who are mostly self-sufficient and live in group homes? Yes, I can see 'cure them' but what if the bots come before that--which I can plainly see happening. It might be a good idea, but it's not a panacea.
Loss of jobs in the manufacturing industries (not all can be done by machines, but a vast majority can.) is also a burden on the undereducated. Growing up in a community where manufacturing jobs were king (Anderson IN--General Motors Corp), and wages for manufacturing jobs were well beyond even what many professionals made it didn't surprise me that when the jobs left, the town deteriorated. They're trying, but it's just never going to be like it was---yet everyone wants that. I recall that a friend of mine from High School attended GMI (Now Kettering University), and his father with 25 years on the assembly line could easily make quite a bit more money in a year than Drew did with an Engineering degree, working for the same company. That's where the major failure in the manufacturing sector has been.
I'm not completely convinced that these 'sex bots' would eliminate prostitution. There will always be ladies who would prefer that line of work, and frankly I could see a cottage industry coming about where a live woman would be an expensive commodity; ergo only the wealthy could afford it.
But, if the education of our young doesn't keep pace with the loss of menial labor jobs; we'll end up with even more of an 'entitlement' sector (for want of a better term) than we have now. Like now, it will be mostly made up of people who can't find a job because the only skill they have is flipping a burger, running a cash register, doing housekeeping, etc.
I think it's a lot worse than that. At the peak of the Great Depression, unemployment was in the neighborhood of 25%. But if you try to identify what jobs are put at risk by advancing technology - and try to account for the fact that even in areas where we can't fully automate the task (like the music examples I gave) technology can still dramatically reduce the number of people required - I don't think it's that outrageous to say that as many as half of all jobs are at risk. Imagine what 50% unemployment would be like.
Ultimately, I think that some kind of radical change in the basis of the economy is going to become necessary. I have no idea what that will be, but "scarcity" can't be the driver.
I'm not completely convinced that these 'sex bots' would eliminate prostitution.
I haven't tried to jump in on that speculation. Frankly, I think the way we treat our human sex workers is shameful.
Ultimately, sex bots won't eliminate prostitution because, by the time they can really be an adequate sex partner, they'll have progressed past the point where we have to seriously address the question of whether they have civil rights.
That's really the much deeper and more significant question that Levy is talking about. When he discusses the idea that humans and bots could marry and have fulfilling relationships, he's talking about "strong AI", which brings to the fore the question of whether these bots are "people".
But, if we're talking about a bot that somebody could really love, as he suggests, then it would have to give a very effective appearance of being a person - it needn't necessarily look like a human, but it's got to appear to have human thoughts and emotions.
I think that leads naturally to granting them rights, so they shouldn't be forced to do sex work any more than human workers should. If we continue with our poor attitudes toward sex workers, then the 'bots won't want to do it any more than humans do, so they won't even be trying to compete with the human prostitutes.
And if they don't get to the point where their deserving of rights, then they'll never be able to really deliver that "GFE" (girlfriend experience), and they'll just be expensive sex toys.
The prostitutes are safe.
Imagine what 50% unemployment would be like.
Unemployment might well be a driver that slows the system--people need to have income to buy your products--the Henry Ford principle. This is also where civil society has to be prepared to answer how we would handle that. Businesses will not benefit with destitute clients and consumers.
The tasks most likely to be automated will be the easiest, most repetitive, tedious (and boring), dangerous, involve abuse people won't put up with for long (tech support, customer service) or involve high degrees of unerring precision.
In one of my other posts, I said that cheap labor would slow the adoption in some areas, but not stop it forever. Right now a lot of our tech support and customer service stuff is done very cheaply and effectively in India. How long before the qualified English speakers there get tired of the abuse and are able and have the opportunity to work their way up to better jobs? Note I am not condoning the abuse they get, but they get it, and I don't see people venting at the representative of "the big company that sold them the faulty product" changing any time soon.
Ultimately, sex bots won't eliminate prostitution because, by the time they can really be an adequate sex partner, they'll have progressed past the point where we have to seriously address the question of whether they have civil rights.
I disagree. When they get "strong AI" as you mentioned, sure. But chatterbots adequate for the task at hand will be feasible long before then. Up until "strong AI", their desires will be pretty much what they are programmed and designed to do.
Even after "strong AI", they may be curious, ambivalent or indifferent to this kind of activity. First of all, there really is no risk to them, so many might say "why not?" just to try it for the human experience. Would they be designed and built to feel anything--literally--as in pain, pleasure or any tactile sensation at all, or would they possibly feel the emotional ties coming with "strong AI"?
Listen to the podcast I posted in my first response. Chatterbots are getting pretty convincing in their ability to convincingly interact, although they fall well short of "strong AI".
As for the prostitutes being safe, see my last response about advantages the bots have over their human counterparts. As for our poor attitudes towards sex workers, what do you mean by that? I mean, it's ILLEGAL for many good reasons. The people who DO treat them poorly are the people that in some cases snatch them involuntarily from their homeland, through force or deception, all the problems of human trafficking, the exploitation by the pimps and the Johns, unbelievable disease risks, exposure to violence, strong association with drug use, and I could go on and on. One of my best friends runs therapy for victims of drug abuse, prostitution, and so forth to try to rehabilitate them. He could present a pretty strong case for you that our side of society doesn't condone the poor treatment these people get. Moreover, legalizing it doesn't change the situation much at all.
On bots replacing people in the service industry the way they did in manufacturing--it will likely happen sooner rather than later, and now we at least have a model to examine. One thing that could slow the adoption of robots is cheap labor, but that too will only slow it, and then only maybe as robots undercut the cheapest of labor.
I think society will adapt as it has in hundreds of years of increasing automation (the industrial revolution at least onward). Yes, there will be bumps along the way, but that's where strong civil society comes in, and human resilience. As for the town dying, humans have migrated from one place to where new opportunities exist since the beginning. That probably sounds bad, and I don't say it lightly, because the same type of thing happened generally where I grew up.
On prostitution, I don't agree because while there might be ladies who prefer that line of work, who's buying?
1) a very realistic robot could be built to look and remain very attractive indefinitely. Moreover, if you get tired of the way it looks, you can change it.
2) if cleaned, you should never get a disease from it
3) it will never get you in legal difficulties, not get you beat up by associating with unsavory characters
4) depending on your world/ethical/moral view, it may not be considered "cheating" on your spouse (I think it would be because of intent), and may be much more socially acceptable than prostitution, especially if caught, especially with people who only object to prostitution because of the victimization of women. It could become about as controversial as masturbation.
5) it could adapt to your preferences and be more willing to play along than the vast majority of human participants would be willing to put up with
6) it could develop desirable features no human could match--I won't elaborate here and leave this to your imagination.
I could go on... I think it will bring with it a number of ethical questions, especially the impact on real relationships. Let's say your spouse is ok with you using one of these and later you and your spouse are getting up in age, but you still have this bot that is still "smokin' hot" and willing. What are the implications for your relationship then?
On the other hand, this could drive down the divorce rate by preventing stupid marriages from hormonal idiots and at the same time keep people like certain celebrities from breeding without good cause.
As for the town dying, humans have migrated from one place to where new opportunities exist since the beginning. That probably sounds bad, and I don't say it lightly, because the same type of thing happened generally where I grew up.
Yes they have migrated--but not all of them; indeed in most cases not even MOST of them. Take a look at the areas in the country hardest hit by the loss of manufacturing and stell production jobs; many of those cities are decaying slowly as the majority of the former 'blue collar elite' cling to the hope that their way of life will return. Or, worse, they've been driven out an into a lower standard of living--thereby creating despair and desperation.
This is where capitalism as a whole fails--it often ignores the human issue. Automation for the sake of increasing profit margin, and enabling those who already are in the position to capitalize on the profits while destroying the lives of the workers (and others who depend on those workers dollars)is wrong. There are cases where automation makes sense-- such as those occupations too dangerous for humans to do safely. Overall, however, it's not a good idea. We used to farm before manufacturing became commonplace. Back then, obesity wasn't an issue. Look at us now; the more 'technology' encroaches, the more weight we gain. I've never seen an obese Amish or Old Order Mennonite, they use technology sparingly.
Technology is a helper, not a replacement. If one robot replaces ten people, what do those ten people do for a living? It doesn't take all ten of them to tend to the robot; and they wouldn't be anyway. The technicians already exist. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but there are certain people who lack the things necessary for a career beyond the assembly line--whether they lack motivation or other drivers necessary is immaterial. What do they do to survive? Become like the homeless living on the streets and begging for money?
I'm a bit of a neo-luddite when it comes to technology. I don't own an mp3 player; I don't download music. My cell phone only has a camera because all of the models (and mine was a freebie) came with a camera. I only replaced my phone because of technology change by the vendor. I have a digital camera, but it's 6 years old; and I only bought that because it was cheaper than a decent 35mm film version. I often wonder if the Amish/Old Order Mennonite aren't on to something by their questioning the wisdom of technology before they possibly adopt it.
On the Prostitution question; I still see a cottage industry catering to the wealthy where they could have a real woman of flesh and blood as opposed to one of plastic and steel. I think I actually read that in a science fiction story somewhere. But, I can see it working just fine--and being sanctioned and regulated like the industry in Nevada is. Not that I advocate it in any way--either version actually; but that's a matter for my faith, and immaterial to the discussion at hand.
I mentioned some places where it is already happening, but what I meant were some more non-obvious places where Chatterbot tech could increase the penetration--things that require better interaction than you get in the run-of-the-mill ATM machine or self-checkout aisle. Your synthesizer example was also a good one. I remember a service a few years ago, and I don't know if it is still extant or not, but you called a number and asked a question in natural language and voice recognition software and something like chatterbot tech would formulate an appropriate response and speak back the answer to you. Think more sophisticated than the automated message about your balance from your credit card company. Ask "How do I get to the airport" and that sort of thing. A lot of customer service and tech support stuff could be handled this way using basically the FAQ with a little vocal query capabilities. The realism is the 'bot's ability to understand what the person really wants and deliver the appropriate information in the correct context. Another aspect of realism is giving the person on the other end the perception that they are really talking to a person--a lot of these people simply want to vent and get some sympathy.
Another related concept I forgot to mention earlier was the Turing Test. It's basically a test for a machine to demonstrate intelligence. From what I heard from the podcast I originally posted, some chatterbots are coming pretty close.
Another related concept I forgot to mention earlier was the Turing Test. It's basically a test for a machine to demonstrate intelligence. From what I heard from the podcast I originally posted, some chatterbots are coming pretty close.
Well, the Turing Test is an interesting thought experiment, but rather interesting and unexpected things happen if you try it out in practice. There've been ongoing competitions where they really do set up the scenario Turing outlined - though it's usually set up on a "restricted domain".
Basically, the conversations are required to center on some particular topic area, chosen by the test subject. That allows the programs to be rather hyper-specialized, like having lots of information about, say, Shakespeare's plays. Or, in an example more relevant to the the topic, it could pretend to be a young woman expecting to be chatted up on the 'net.
The "test" then typically has a couple of dozen terminals. Some of them are connected to programs, some are connected to real people, who've chosen their own domain. A group of testers then gets a chance to interact with each of the terminals, and then votes whether they think it's a person or a program on the other end.
One thing that I think is nearly as interesting as the fact that programs are getting better and better at passing for humans is that there are almost always human subjects who the testers think are programs. So, there's a secondary "test" that happens right along with the Turing test. While the straightforward test is seeing whether programs can pass for humans, the testers are being tested for their ability to recognize other humans in the first place - and it seems they're not really very good at it.
On researcher specifically designed a bot that hung out in online chat rooms and pretended to be a somewhat flirtatious young woman. He would then examine the chat logs to see how well she was doing at fooling people. One young man spent something like thirty hours over the course of several weeks trying to get her to go out with him. So, does that say that the program passes the Turing test, or that her suitor failed it?
Yes, there are many humorous stories about failing the Turing test, and it seems to be a badge of honor over at Slashdot.
Check out the podcast I linked in my first response. A leading researcher in the field had a "relationship" for quite some time with a chatterbot and finally figured out he'd been had.
RSS
Already Here by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 02 January 2008
We've had assistive devices around for some time now that arguable involve human/machine intercourse. Blow-up dolls, "massagers", etc. are easy examples, but there are also some quite sophisticated ones such as the Sybian. There is also quite a shocking line of products that involve electrical nerve stimulation (pardon the pun). All that is really missing from what I can tell is what gamers call the "AI", artificial intelligence, that gives realistic and responsive interaction to your behavior like a person would. That too is rapidly falling, as one researcher on the Scientific American podcast said a while back. The 26 September 2007 Science Talk entitled Who Do You Think You Are: Chatting With Bots, and the Sexuality Spectrum had psychologist Robert Epstein talking about being fooled into having an internet relationship with a Chatterbot--a computer program designed to make you think you're communicating with a human. This is ironic, because Dr. Epstein is a leading researcher in this field. It was a fascinating discussion for anyone interested in computer programing, AI, human psychology, etc.
Ultimately, though, I think doing this will only inevitably lead to guys being rejected by their machines and getting the line "not now, I've got a headache". But seriously, this could have serious, deleterious consequences for humanity if people abuse it, do nothing but that all day, or retards their ability to develop real relationships with real people. On the other hand, as Will pointed out, it could end prostitution, allow people to safely and harmlessly express urges that currently lead people into dangerous and destructive situations--like child molesters, rapists and the like and may be used to turn them away from these sadistic tendencies (especially by lifting over-self repression which prevents them from finding acceptable outlets and relationships).
RE: Already Here by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 02 January 2008
On the other hand, as Will pointed out, it could end prostitution, allow people to safely and harmlessly express urges that currently lead people into dangerous and destructive situations--like child molesters, rapists and the like….
Ah, but not when the robots start hiring lawyers. Believe it or not the robot rights people have been hovering in the background for a long time. (Just waiting for technology to catch up with their yearnings for litigation.)
RE: Already Here by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 02 January 2008
I did not mean to imply raping or molesting the robots, simulating the rape or molestation of a human. I meant that people who ordinarily might turn out that way might find a more conducive, non-judgmental outlet that would maybe prevent them from going down that road. I'm not sure if that's what you meant, or if you were in line with my "not tonight, I have a headache" joke about robots with free will. If that's the case, tons of Star Trek: TNG episodes with Data, the movie Bicentennial Man and I, Robot kind of probe those issues. Particularly the episode of TNG where the crew gets a disease that lowers inhibitions and Data gets it on with Tasha Yar. Bicentennial Man also has the robot and a human fall in love and they get it on, all while the robot has pending court cases to declare him human.
RE: Already Here by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 02 January 2008
I did not mean to imply raping or molesting the robots, simulating the rape or molestation of a human.
Actually the whole thing was sort of a tongue-in-cheek poke at the whole idea of robot rights. That sort of thing is hard to imagine today, but maybe someday the concept will be appropriate.
Seriously though, I doubt whether a person with these tendencies would even get whatever satisfaction they required from a robot, if they knew it was a robot. If the robot was extremely life-like as in Blade Runner, then maybe they might, but if they are that realistic, maybe they do need rights. (I think this movie also touched on that topic in its strange way.)
But if I understand you correctly, what you are talking about is having the robots be so accepting that the violent or overly sexual tendencies toward others are more or less nurtured away. I guess the question still has to be; how are these people identified soon enough to begin this subtle mechanical psychotherapy? Or would the benefit have to be based on the chance they just find these (carefully placed?) robots in their subconscious search for an endlessly accepting person?
RE: Already Here by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 04 January 2008
Ahhh, how could I have forgotten to add Blade Runner to my list? I think it would be inevitable for sex-bots to be that realistic, because people would demand more and more tactile realism and inter-"personal" response.
As for the latter part, yeah, I think that's where I was going with where this could be good. My premise is that ONE of the factors that drive deviants like molesters and rapists to victimize others is lack of outlet due to self-repression that suddenly and violently ruptures with the need for furtive, covert expression, fear of rejection, etc. I've heard it said many times that rape is not a sexual act, it's a violent act against the victim. Maybe a therapeutic, patient, realistic bot could nurture a screwed up individual back to normal relationships by gradually applying more and more influence toward acceptable behavior.