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

[Ancient History]

"No, see, I've programmed her to like it when I shit on her chest. Plus, she's machine-washable."

[Kaelik]

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.

I'm pretty sure that most of the complaints against dehumanizing sexbots come from actual feminists who don't understand the concept of robots, rather than actual robotists that don't understand feminism.

Like, the feminists who are against pron as dehumanizing women probably just expended the same criticism to sexbots without checking to see if it makes sense.

I can kind of see it in theory, in that if someone's only experience with "women" is a robot that exists to gratify their desires they will treat human women as less human. But I don't see any reason to expect that to be more common than people with sexbots instead dissociating human women with sex, but still being able to recognize them as humans.

[Prak]

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!

Right, no, I get that. I get that the difference between actual free will and all choices being a foregone conclusion based on prior events/circumstances/stimuli is a big dumb illusion.

It still feels weird to me to create things that are assumed to be as mentally capable as us for the express purpose of sexin'.

[hyzmarca]

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.

I'm pretty sure that most of the complaints against dehumanizing sexbots come from actual feminists who don't understand the concept of robots, rather than actual robotists that don't understand feminism.

Like, the feminists who are against pron as dehumanizing women probably just expended the same criticism to sexbots without checking to see if it makes sense.

I can kind of see it in theory, in that if someone's only experience with "women" is a robot that exists to gratify their desires they will treat human women as less human. But I don't see any reason to expect that to be more common than people with sexbots instead dissociating human women with sex, but still being able to recognize them as humans.

Actually the argument is if you spend all your time fucking a real doll you won't know how to deal with actual flesh and blood women as human beings.

It isn't that sex bots are dehumanizing, it's that sex bots train you to expect your partner to put out on demand and do not train you how to deal with actual human beings that may not be in the mood.

[erik]

That argument is a bit rubbish though as it applies just as well to masturbation (which is essentially what a sex bot is, a masturbation tool).

[Kaelik]

Actually the argument is if you spend all your time fucking a real doll you won't know how to deal with actual flesh and blood women as human beings.

It isn't that sex bots are dehumanizing, it's that sex bots train you to expect your partner to put out on demand and do not train you how to deal with actual human beings that may not be in the mood.

SO literally the exact thing I just said in the post you quoted as the most likely criticism... Why begin a sentence that exactly restates what I just said with "Actually"?

[OgreBattle]

Sexbots will never replace Tinder

[Korwin]

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.

I'm pretty sure that most of the complaints against dehumanizing sexbots come from actual feminists who don't understand the concept of robots, rather than actual robotists that don't understand feminism.

Like, the feminists who are against pron as dehumanizing women probably just expended the same criticism to sexbots without checking to see if it makes sense.

I can kind of see it in theory, in that if someone's only experience with "women" is a robot that exists to gratify their desires they will treat human women as less human. But I don't see any reason to expect that to be more common than people with sexbots instead dissociating human women with sex, but still being able to recognize them as humans.

Actually the argument is if you spend all your time fucking a real doll you won't know how to deal with actual flesh and blood women as human beings.

It isn't that sex bots are dehumanizing, it's that sex bots train you to expect your partner to put out on demand and do not train you how to deal with actual human beings that may not be in the mood.

But why the sexism angle, I would expect women use those robots too. So the Problem would be existing for both genders. Did someone miss the existence of dildos?

[Maxus]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... e-Minister

So, uh, apparently, David Cameron fucked a pig's head as an initiation thing at Oxford.

[hyzmarca]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... e-Minister

So, uh, apparently, David Cameron fucked a pig's head as an initiation thing at Oxford.

Doesn't everyone do that at oxford?

[Prak]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... e-Minister

So, uh, apparently, David Cameron fucked a pig's head as an initiation thing at Oxford.

I particularly like the stock photo choice for the article. 10/10.

[nockermensch]

I have this persistent belief that the first strong AIs will be invented for a videogame or for sex bots (in this case, it'll be Japanese). For everything else you can create specialist systems, which do the job just fine, without the hassle of having egos.

[name_here]

Personally, I don't see much point in making an AI that thinks exactly like a human. We already have a substantial supply of humans and are well-equipped to make more. And I also don't see any ethical issue in making an AI like to do what you want it to do that isn't encompassed by making an AI in the first place; if you don't write a utility function of some kind you do not have an AI, you have a bad random number generator. So your options are to make it like to do what you want it to do or make it like to do something else. Well, or you could fuck up trying to do option one.

[Maxus]

Personally, I don't see much point in making an AI that thinks exactly like a human.

Well, I'd like one to be human enough to think "Enslaving and killing people is bad!"

[Stahlseele]

Laws are made to be broken.
Or Lawyered around with.
Which is worse? You decide!

[Starmaker]

if you don't write a utility function of some kind you do not have an AI

Depending on how AIs will be made, you might not have full control over the utility function.

[Korwin]

Personally, I don't see much point in making an AI that thinks exactly like a human.

Well, I'd like one to be human enough to think "Enslaving and killing people is bad!"

Why do you think human on the whole think "Enslaving and killing People is bad!"?
We dont need to look into history to see, that many humans disagree with that...

Edit: My point being. Making the AI too human, might be counterproductive.

[Omegonthesane]

Personally, I don't see much point in making an AI that thinks exactly like a human.

Well, I'd like one to be human enough to think "Enslaving and killing people is bad!"

Why do you think human on the whole think "Enslaving and killing People is bad!"?
We dont need to look into history to see, that many humans disagree with that...

Edit: My point being. Making the AI too human, might be counterproductive.

The way I remember it it's more that people have disagreed over what counts as a person. Pretty sure taking white men as slaves in the Deep South was considered bad in the build up to the Civil War.

[Korwin]

Well, I'd like one to be human enough to think "Enslaving and killing people is bad!"

Why do you think human on the whole think "Enslaving and killing People is bad!"?
We dont need to look into history to see, that many humans disagree with that...

Edit: My point being. Making the AI too human, might be counterproductive.

The way I remember it it's more that people have disagreed over what counts as a person. Pretty sure taking white men as slaves in the Deep South was considered bad in the build up to the Civil War.

Is that an argument for human like AI's?
Sounds to me as one against.

[Omegonthesane]

Why do you think human on the whole think "Enslaving and killing People is bad!"?
We dont need to look into history to see, that many humans disagree with that...

Edit: My point being. Making the AI too human, might be counterproductive.

The way I remember it it's more that people have disagreed over what counts as a person. Pretty sure taking white men as slaves in the Deep South was considered bad in the build up to the Civil War.

Is that an argument for human like AI's?
Sounds to me as one against.

It's a statement, nothing more and nothing less.

Although if I had to pick a side, going for less human like would raise fewer ethical concerns.

[Prak]

Could we even make a "nonhuman" AI? A lot of people define "humanlike" by intelligence, it's why the goalposts for language and true intelligence in animals keep getting moved, people enshrine "human" intelligence. If we made an AI that was truly intelligent, however you want to define that, people would say it was humanlike.

[Kaelik]

The way I remember it it's more that people have disagreed over what counts as a person. Pretty sure taking white men as slaves in the Deep South was considered bad in the build up to the Civil War.

Race slavery in the south wasn't the only version of slavery that ever existed, or in fact, the most predominate version of slavery currently in the world.

Unless you are contending that people find women non-human. Sex slavery is the most common form of slavery currently. And in history there are tons of non-race based slavery. I don't think any greeks actually thought greeks from two cities over where inhuman. They just thought they lost a war and were captured.

Could we even make a "nonhuman" AI? A lot of people define "humanlike" by intelligence, it's why the goalposts for language and true intelligence in animals keep getting moved, people enshrine "human" intelligence. If we made an AI that was truly intelligent, however you want to define that, people would say it was humanlike.

Unless you know, it thought in obviously different ways than humans. The idea that any version of intelligence would look human is the most humanocentric thing you could possibly say.

The reason people enshrine human intelligence in conversations about animals is because animals are obviously way the fuck dumber than humans. Not because they think in a different way.

[Prak]

Sure, when you're talking to someone reasonable. My point, I suppose, isn't precisely that "intelligence is human," but rather "most people think intelligence is human," and thus most people will think any intelligence is humanlike, even if it thinks in obviously non-human ways (in which case they'll simply call it "evil"). But I phrased it stupidly because I'm dumb.

[Omegonthesane]

The way I remember it it's more that people have disagreed over what counts as a person. Pretty sure taking white men as slaves in the Deep South was considered bad in the build up to the Civil War.

Race slavery in the south wasn't the only version of slavery that ever existed, or in fact, the most predominate version of slavery currently in the world.

This is true; I don't know enough about the subject to make an equivalent statement about other forms of it.

Unless you are contending that people find women non-human.

You've seen the Republicans, right?

Sex slavery is the most common form of slavery currently. And in history there are tons of non-race based slavery. I don't think any greeks actually thought greeks from two cities over where inhuman. They just thought they lost a war and were captured.

They probably thought the captured Greeks were somehow less of a person than they themselves were by having ticked a set of boxes which meant it was OK to make slaves of them.

Could we even make a "nonhuman" AI? A lot of people define "humanlike" by intelligence, it's why the goalposts for language and true intelligence in animals keep getting moved, people enshrine "human" intelligence. If we made an AI that was truly intelligent, however you want to define that, people would say it was humanlike.

Unless you know, it thought in obviously different ways than humans. The idea that any version of intelligence would look human is the most humanocentric thing you could possibly say.

The reason people enshrine human intelligence in conversations about animals is because animals are obviously way the fuck dumber than humans. Not because they think in a different way.

Out of interest, can you give an example of what a truly unlike-a-human intelligence looks like?

[Kaelik]

They probably thought the captured Greeks were somehow less of a person than they themselves were by having ticked a set of boxes which meant it was OK to make slaves of them.

In related news, of course no human could ever have sex with another person they consider human, and I know this is true, because I will boldly assert without evidence that any instance of sex the parties must have thought that the other party wasn't human right after admitting ignorance of the subject matter.

If only there were an explicit fallacy to describe this action.

Fuck right off. They clearly fucking though they were human, read literally any goddam history at all. You are just fucking wrong when you say that humans are intrinsically opposed to human slavery. They obviously aren't. It is obviously something that culturally takes dominance some fucking time after 600CE, and before yesterday, but it fucking obviously isn't intrinsic to human nature.

Out of interest, can you give an example of what a truly unlike-a-human intelligence looks like?

A non-human intelligence, whether a robot or an alien would have developed it's mind differently than human evolution. So for a start, the most easily noticeable differences might be that it lacks some or all of the cognitive biases which are a function of our brain's evolution.

So in the case of an AI, it might have no ingroup bias, or confirmation bias, or presentism bias, attentional bias, or might be immune to the sunk cost fallacy, or base rate neglect. Or any number of other missing biases. Presumably if it were alien, it might have it's own completely different biases.

That is just the very beginnings of a start. Obviously minds generated by a different system might lack those biases because they fundamentally process information differently, perhaps having nearly literally different minds for considering different implications, IE, we might program an ethics mind that operates in complete parallel to a goal oriented mind and vetoes decisions but doesn't make decisions on it's own.