I have not. But I will say that if and when we have robots for which a strong case can be made are conscious then a, that’s another person, and b, anyone making conscious sex robots deserves a special place in hell. (Yes, I’ve read Friday and Saturn’s Children.)
5 Likes
I’m not suggesting that this is all going to turn out swell and peachy keen; but does anyone else find it a trifle odd for someone with a background in ethics, rather than, say, psychology, declaring that a thing is “profoundly damaging” before the N=not many have even been exposed to it for long?
Seems awfully like reformatting your prediction until it looks like an empirically derived observation without sufficient cause.
(Edit: especially odd when(while I wouldn’t say that this is my prediction about how it will go, just a one you could venture with similar levels of plausibility and lack of actual demonstration) you could as easily go with “kids might learn that Mommy and daddy can have their actual human relationship with less tension because when they just want to get off they have options” rather than daughter learning that only being a perfectly crafted submissive gynoid is good enough and son learning to expect no less. Not saying that that particular happy ending will occur, or even that I find it most probable; but it’s no worse supported than the zOMG fucked up for life! option.
Now, what will happen in school if so much as a scrap of rumor about this gets around among their lord-of-the-flies peers… That will definitely be super traumatizing.)
3 Likes
Not anymore. It seems like in these days, all you have to have is an opinion and a channel to scream it on.
3 Likes
Yes, but not many.
Just show everyone this educational video:
Problem solved! 
6 Likes
I think it probably went down a little like this…
[Ring ring]
Ethicist: Hello?
Reporter: Hi, New York Post here. We’d like you to weigh in on a story we’re doing about robotics.
Ethicist: OK. What’s the story?
Reporter: Well, there’s this man who bought one of those interactive sex dolls and leaves it on his couch for his young children to play with while he’s not banging it.
Ethicist: Oh man that sounds messed up. I bet those kids are going to have some issues later on.
Reporter: Thanks, bye!
13 Likes
ROBOT genitalia is the important thing to remember here, and why I think it was used.
2 Likes
I highly recommend the series. However, some parts are not easy to watch given parallels between the synths, immigrants, and POC. What amazed me is how easily people turn over access to their homes and care of their children to others.
There are many plot points that raise questions about consciousness, too. For example, what should happen to those who make and/or use unconscious sex robots in a world where both types of robots exist?
3 Likes
Well, like I said, I find it a little weird, but if someone is using an unconscious machine made up to substitute for a human in a servile role, I ultimately think it’s between them and the other people in their family or intimate life. For example, I’d be even more squicked out by a housekeeping robot made to fullfill a role of racist stereotypes of minorities, but I suspect some incredible asshole will build a minstrel version of Rosey eventually. And when they’re caught boasting about it I hope they’re shunned by all civilized society. My initial roadmap for dealing with people who build unconscious sexbots in a world that also has conscious non-human machines would be to start with how I’d react to that. Even so, I acknowledge that that’s likely a primitive and inadequate response; society will have to keep evolving to cope with that.
I’ll give it a go. IMHO, one of the solemn duties of SF is to hold a mirror up to contemporary issues in a way that cuts deep. Thanks for the recommendation.
So true.
2 Likes
That’s why sex toys need to be kept out of reach of your children on the top shelf of the bedroom closet behind a stack of empty shoe boxes between your weed and your never to be realized dreams.
3 Likes
You know - you bring up and interesting point. What exactly is the difference? Because the robot/doll has a face? You are still mainly using either a hole or shaft for fun (depending what you are doing.) This can be realistic, or purely functional toy wise. But your toy serves the same purpose as the doll/robot. If you aren’t using it solo, then because it has a face it your partner is more likely to get jealous (as some do with regular toys).
You say it would be for “servile” reasons, but I have seen a couple Real Doll documentaries and many of them have more of a faux loving relationship. I mean, I agree, some of it is pretty creepy. But on the other hand, wouldn’t it be a bit creepier if you treat something with a face like you treat a dildo or a fleshlight?
Though I suppose if the Robot was advanced enough to be AI that would open a whole host of ethics. But if it is basically an adult Teddy Ruskin telling you he/she loves you, it is just and features for the same basic purpose?
So, yeah, part of me agrees with you, and part of me think its just a sexual quirk that we just don’t really understand - similar to how some people are with BDSM or gay sex or dressing up in a Boba Fett Costume and tying up Han Solo because of their lack of exposure and how it just seems to foreign to what they are into, they find it off putting.
3 Likes
It has a human appearance and is programmed to talk dirty. I’ve never heard of a talking vibrator (though I’m sure there’s probably at least one out there somewhere, Rule 34 and all).
5 Likes
OK - but you would say the appearance is what takes it over the line. I assume if someone made a talking fleshlight or dildo it wouldn’t be an issue?
What about the VR stuff where you have video and audio but then a device to stimulate your genitals?
What about the Boba Fett Han Solo thing? Is that weird? Asking for a friend…
Also, you know on a mac and probably PCs you can have the various computer voices? Some of them sound like Stephen Hawking? Yeah, someone should totally make a talking sex toy with that.
3 Likes
I’d say the personification of an object designed solely for sexual gratification is what makes it creepy, especially when it’s taken to the degree of likening it to a member of the family.
5 Likes
I don’t see it either as mere masturbation aid or just another kink. Nor would I see any point in jealously toward an unconscious machine. My issue is that it’s an attempt to create an entire sexual partner that has no will of its own. That the sexbots/dolls are still unrealistic farcical parodies is sort of beside the point, which is that the goal is to create something indistinguishable from an actual human sexual partner save that it cannot disobey the owner, not so much a virtual toy as a virtual sex slave. And the key difference from S&M is that the relationship is neither consensual nor non-consensual because there’s no actual person there to consent to the role.
You raise a good point about virtual reality, which will likely advance faster and be more widely available for the simple reason that software is cheaper to distribute than hardware. Or we could invoke the ultimate fictional extrapolation of both, the holodeck. In any case, my judgement would be based on whether it was an substitute sex slave or merely a sex toy, and the main difference is largely down to intent. Intent can get murky, but I think it’s crystal clear with regard to these attempts to create as realistic a sexbot as possible.
Finally, let me be clear that I’m not saying it’s unethical to use a sexbot - though it’s arguably unethical to allow little kids to play with it - only that it’s creepy to me and would factor into my character judgement of anyone with whom I was considering an intimate relationship. Some people feel the same way about porn, or masturbation aids, or BDSM, or Boba Fett cosplay. And they, like everyone, deserve the right to choose the criteria by which they accept invitations to intimacy, even if the rest of us disagree with it.
I’d be opposed to the subjugation of conscious AI for any reason, but we are fortunately still a ways off from that if we can accomplish it at all.
5 Likes
Well this raises the question of “what is the intent of this technology?” You seem to suggest that it is to create a partner that can’t disobey. I think it is probably more that people are trying to create a more fulfilling masturbatory aid. As fun as jerking off can be, it pretty much never is as good as with another person. Your brain just doesn’t make the same chemicals. Personally I don’t know if you could ever replicate the experience. Maybe…
Anyway, as you said, they are just “unconscious machines”. You turn on the vibrator and to pleasure yourself. I am not sure if VR or dolls or future sex robots are really any different than that. In fact I think anyone who wants an actual sex slave that can’t say no would get no actual pleasure form this sort of device (or it would be as hollow as jerking off). As I understand it, it completely defeats the purpose of people who get off on power dynamics.
I guess we will just have to keep an eye on Japan and see where they take it…
4 Likes
I like big compressors and I cannot lie…
1 Like
[quote=“Mister44, pos_emphasized text_t:98, topic:124685”]
That the sexbots/dolls are still unrealistic farcical parodies is sort of beside the point, which is that the goal is to create something indistinguishable from an actual human sexual partner save that it cannot disobey the owner, not so much a virtual toy as a virtual sex slave.
…
In any case, my judgement would be based on whether it was an substitute sex slave or merely a sex toy, and the main difference is largely down to intent
Well this raises the question of “what is the intent of this technology?” You seem to suggest that it is to create a partner that can’t disobey. I think it is probably more that people are trying to create a more fulfilling masturbatory aid. As fun as jerking off can be, it pretty much never is as good as with another person. Your brain just doesn’t make the same chemicals. Personally I don’t know if you could ever replicate the experience. Maybe…
But masturbation is a solo pursuit- for many people the appeal is that there is no obligation or time required to pleasure a lover.
Robots, and certainly sex bots, are owned by individuals who are then responsible for their existence, capacities, and even potentially their “goals and desires.
A humanoid bot designed to have sex with humans would function just as a sex slave in that respect. After all, who would buy a sex bot that didn’t have sex?
A vibrator could also be called a slave, but there is no illusion that it is anything other than an object with a single function. Sex bots, with their evolving human forms, faces, voices and relationship AI are meant to blur the line between machine and human in hopes of replicating partner sex. And that’s where it gets sticky, because sex bot buyer always owns their partner.
3 Likes
the only way around that would be to use voice recognition systems, accelerometers and motion detectors to limit access to the sexual features of the sexbot to individuals who are gentle and respectful to the bot.
i have a feeling that a significant fraction of the potential market for such beings would immediately begin the search for ways to subvert, disable, or bypass such limits (mra-goons and incels, i’m looking at you).
3 Likes
Setting aside the inevitable subversion of access limitations (and I do believe it would be inevitable) Do access limitations really negate the owner/owned dynamic?
1 Like
