NSFW News That Makes You Laugh/Cry/Hurl/etc.

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Whipstitch
Prince
Posts: 3660
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm

Post by Whipstitch »

Shrapnel wrote:Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, an' all that.
And sometimes the cigar has a foot fetish or is a black dude who screws white women while a man pretending to be her husband tearfully masturbates. Shit be weird and it's folly not to expect people to have questions about it.
bears fall, everyone dies
User avatar
Shrapnel
Prince
Posts: 3146
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:14 pm
Location: Burgess Shale, 500 MYA
Contact:

Post by Shrapnel »

I've already conceded the point, man. Cheesus.
Is this wretched demi-bee
Half asleep upon my knee
Some freak from a menagerie?
No! It's Eric, the half a bee
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

Kaelik wrote:
No one said at any point that you should take sex lessons from porn. People said you should take porn lessons from porn.
It seems that I've misunderstood the conversation then.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
hyzmarca
Prince
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:07 pm

Post by hyzmarca »

I've just learned that Latex Starfleet uniforms exist.
http://io9.com/5983097/lady-data-cospla ... et-uniform
User avatar
Ancient History
Serious Badass
Posts: 12708
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm

Post by Ancient History »

I'll be in my bunk.
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

RadiantPhoenix wrote:"If a labia doesn't look like this it's deformed: \|/ " (I'm looking at you Australia)
Australia? They do a lot of labiaplasties or something?
Last edited by RobbyPants on Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5861
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

RobbyPants wrote:
RadiantPhoenix wrote:"If a labia doesn't look like this it's deformed: \|/ " (I'm looking at you Australia)
Australia? They do a lot of labiaplasties or something?
Everything's upside down there.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

RobbyPants wrote:
RadiantPhoenix wrote:"If a labia doesn't look like this it's deformed: \|/ " (I'm looking at you Australia)
Australia? They do a lot of labiaplasties or something?
Shooping is considered an acceptable alternative.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

The Australian censorship Classification Board has weird ideas about what is and is not acceptable pornography. One of the weirdest is the thing where they ban all porn that has women who "look like" they are under 18, regardless of their actual age (sucks to be a small breasted porn star in Australia, I guess). But the weirdest idea they have about porn is that if a woman's inner lips are showing it automatically is classified as hard core rather than soft core, which since most women have their inner lips poking through the outer lips, is exactly as bonkers as it sounds.

It's like when Japan's ban on showing public hair or penises gave us tentacle molestations of prepubescent girls.

-Username17
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

So they like huge boobs but think most vaginas are icky?
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:So they like huge boobs but think most vaginas are icky?
Image

Sexy! :gross:
hyzmarca
Prince
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:07 pm

Post by hyzmarca »

User avatar
Ancient History
Serious Badass
Posts: 12708
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm

Post by Ancient History »

User avatar
Chamomile
Prince
Posts: 4632
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:45 am

Post by Chamomile »

I suppose we may as well cut to the chase.
User avatar
Ancient History
Serious Badass
Posts: 12708
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm

Post by Ancient History »

User avatar
Occluded Sun
Duke
Posts: 1044
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 6:15 pm

Post by Occluded Sun »

"Don't date robots!" - the Space Pope
"Most men are of no more use in their lives but as machines for turning food into excrement." - Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci
User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Post by Josh_Kablack »

I like the article's splicing there to evoke ironic concern trolling.

"we're building AIs for sex robots" and two paragraphs later the objection raised is that "sex robots reduce relationships to just the physical". Uh, if that was the case, there would be no AI necessary.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

https://vimeo.com/12915013

But seriously, how intelligent are we talking? Are we talking AI like my scaley Skyrim waifu Shahvee, or are we talking full sentience, like Bender? I would have no problems making the former into a robot sex toy but the latter I'd have issues with... And where would you draw the line? Or is it simply impossible to have a sentient robot?
Last edited by Count Arioch the 28th on Wed Sep 16, 2015 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1724
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

I'd guess the intelligence target is whatever's "good enough" to be beneficial to the end user. Like, if you view a sex robot as akin to an appliance, you don't want to have to negotiate with your coffeemaker, refrigerator, or vacuum in order for them to do their thing. You do want your coffeemaker robot to remember your preferred settings and what time you want it to brew. You want your vacuum robot to learn the layout of your place, not vacuum up any pets or children, and plug itself in when it's low on battery power.

You probably want your sex robot to ask about your day and remember that Saturdays are when you want it to pretend to be a 1920s flapper or whatever.

How ambulatory are these things supposed to be anyway? Can it move at all? Are they imagining that eventually it can get up and walk around and do stuff?
Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Post by Starmaker »

Whining about whether it's okay or not to make human-like AIs with preset priorities is offensively stupid handwringing. We don't have human-like AIs, we don't know how the specifics of how they will operate, and whether or not it's okay to make them extra sexy will of course depend on these specifics, because how can it not?

Oh and whoever says sex dolls are inherently sexist and demeaning to women had better take a good look in the mirror, because what they're saying is essentially "oh noes, women will be totally cast adrift after they're deprived of their primary role as sperm receptacles".
User avatar
Prak
Serious Badass
Posts: 17340
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Prak »

Personally, I'd prefer my sex bot to have a very complex program, rather than a true artificial intelligence (as people typically use the term). A machine, even a very complex machine that can mimic human emotion, is made to be used. A truly intelligent being gets to make its own decisions, and I'd feel really weird if that intelligence was in a sex bot, because one of two things then happens- one, those intelligences are hindered and are not allowed to make a true choice as regards sex, or two, those intelligences do have full choice, and your probably several thousand sex bot wants nothing to do with your dick.

Or hell! If we're making truly intelligent bots, wouldn't they have their own sexualities and orientations? Could a "sex bot" be asexual?

Or am I confusing sapience and intelligence at this point?
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.

You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

Starmaker wrote:We don't have human-like AIs, we don't know how the specifics of how they will operate
I have no idea what the sex bot company plans are.

But we finally, much later than expected have some (sort of) AI promise on the horizon.

It's pretty shitty "AI", but it could be passably convincing for human conversation.

As far as I understand it. All it really is is giant databases and a complex statistical guess as to what to say in response to input. Basically a parrot program like ELIZA with something like the entire Google database to reference.

While it, might, "soon" generate good enough conversation to say, let people emotionally relate to a robot largely immobile creepy looking doll, very few ethicists are going to call a very marginally evolved parrot program the turning point for the dilemma of AI rights/slavery.
Last edited by PhoneLobster on Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

Starmaker wrote:Oh and whoever says sex dolls are inherently sexist and demeaning to women had better take a good look in the mirror, because what they're saying is essentially "oh noes, women will be totally cast adrift after they're deprived of their primary role as sperm receptacles".
I am also not sure how sex-bots/sophisticated companion-bots are supposed to be a threat specifically to women. Briefly setting aside the whole "women are paid less money and targeted less by producers of fancy widgets" problem, I'm pretty sure in the distant future of robot hanky panky when you can order whatever you think your perfect partner is online, human relationships in general are going to become considerably trickier.

It's almost like there's some implicit assumption here that women are the passive objects of relationships who become worthless if they can be replaced, and not active participants equal to their male counterparts. :roll:
Prak wrote:A truly intelligent being gets to make its own decisions, and I'd feel really weird if that intelligence was in a sex bot, because one of two things then happens- one, those intelligences are hindered and are not allowed to make a true choice as regards sex, or two, those intelligences do have full choice, and your probably several thousand sex bot wants nothing to do with your dick.
We have had this exact thread before in which you said the exact same thing and I spent several walls of text attempting to disabuse you of your notions. It apparently did not stick. Round 2! Fight!

For simplification purposes, we are going to divide decision-making into two parts; an analytical component and a utility function.

The purpose of the analytical component is to assess situations, list possible actions, and predict outcomes. If you see someone smoking near an audibly hissing propane tank, the analytical component should recognize that the hissing is likely a leak, that propane is flammable, that a cigarette is a flame, and that the cigarette might light the propane leaking into the air. The analytical component should propose a list of actions, like "shout at the dude" or "run the fuck away" or "hug the propane tank," and it should also predict the results of these various actions (respectively that would be you might save the guy's life, you are escaping any potential danger, and you are putitng yourself in potential danger). But here's the thing: the universe does not give a shit which of those you choose. There is no objectively corrent answer. Hugging the propane tank and waiting for the sweet, fiery embrace of death is exactly as valid as shouting at the guy to warn him to stop smoking which is exactly as valid as running for your life because every man for himself. You, as a person with preferences and emotions and opinions, do not find all of those options equally appealling. But that is because you have preferences, emotions, and opinions.

So where the fuck do those preferences, emotions, and opinions come from? Well, that's the utility function. The utility function's purpose is to look at the outcomes predicted by your analytical component and rank them, so that it's actually possible for you to give a shit about your actions and make meaningful choices. Without some method of preferring certain outcomes to other outcomes, you can't make any choices that aren't random choices. Alright, so where the fuck does the utility function come from then? Well, in your case, it comes from millions of years of circumstance and random chance. The reason you prefer to not hug exploding propane tanks is because suicidal creatures are evolutionary dead-ends and your utility function was built over a very long time by a slow, brute force search for evolutionarily successful organisms. Again, there's no objective validity to that. It is the way it is because cold hard math, and math does not judge and does not give shits about anything.

A sophisticated AI sex-bot would operate on the exact same principles; there's an analytical component and a utility function. Except instead of having the utility function designed by millions of years of die rolls in the quest for organisms which won't kill themselves off, it'd be designed by a team of engineers for a specific purpose. That does not make it any less valid or any more forced than your utility function. That does not mean the sex-bot's choices aren't true choices. That does not mean the sex-bot's intelligence is hampered. It means a really boring fucking tautology alongside a really boring observation - people (and sex-bots) like to do the things that they like to do, and people (and sex-bots) don't like to do the things that they don't like to do, and different people (and sex-bots) like and don't like different things. If a sex-bot is a "slave to their programming," then so are you, because you too were programmed by forces completely out of your control.

Now, there is a weird ethical question here, but it concerns the ramifications of holding the power to decide what makes another intelligent being happy. That's kind of an interesting discussion, but it is unrelated to what you are saying.
Last edited by DSMatticus on Thu Sep 17, 2015 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply