Forecast: Sex and Marriage With Robots by 2050

[shira]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I can see sex with robots, it's just a natural progression of today's sex toys (although I don't think they will be "robots" like in a sci-fi movie). But marriage implies an emotional connection as well, and no matter how advanced sex toys get, that just doesn't work. We've been working on artificial intelligence for years, and there is literally NO progress towards any kind of reasonably human intelligence. The problem isn't capacity or processing power, it's that computers are fundamentally not "thinking" machines, they are processing machines. We're not even close to copying even the most basic of human thought processes, how close could we possibly be to artificial emotions good enough to draw in a real life human?

The only application I can see here would be for the fringe of the social scene, the kind of people who don't WANT a real relationship.

I think you are mistaken. I am a machine, in my opinion, a consciousness grafted onto carbon. I see no reason why my slow neurons can't be matched by lightning fast ones in silica or gallium arsenide, etc, or some other type of molecular processor. I also do not see why machine that design themselves and create their own software won't be able to artificially push their own evolution at astronomical rates.

Ah, but that right there is the problem. It has nothing to do with neuron speed or processing power, we simply don't understand enough about what consciousness is to try and simulated it with a computer. Computers are becoming better and better at calculating, but they haven't made much progress in terms of THINKING, despite exponential increases in performance.

I don't hink we need to "understand" consciousness to mimic it. In ten or twenty years. we'll be able to capture and analyze unimaginable quantities of data on human interactions. And unimaginably faster computers will allow us to analyze and then correlate human actions and reactions. Once that's done, incorporating that data into a computer behavior algorithm will be trivial.

The other challenge will be the creation of machines that look (and feel) sufficiently human to be acceptable. Accomplishing that task doesn't seem far-fetched at all.

A machine that looks human (and is highly attractive) and responds indistinguishably from a real human will evoke an emotional response from real humans. If little girls love their teddy bears and barbie dolls, do you really think adult humans won't connect emotionally with highly sophisticated machines?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
See the point of relationships is mutual attraction, you can't get a robot to like you because it wants to.

We don't want others to like us because we tell them to like us, we want them to love us as they are for who we are.

It's important to me that my lovergirl knows who i am at heart and loves me because of that, it's not like the Evangelicals who pretty much don't consider women full human beings (man then woman) or Islamists who are the same or whatever the fuck you like.

I want my woman to go get me a beer because she wants to give me a beer, not because i fucking decide what she does.

Most religious folks will not understand this post at all.

Most RELIGIOUS folks? Hell, I think a lot of people have pretty goofy ideas of what a good relationship is. I don't know how many couples I know where one person or the other (or both) are totally dependent on the other, a relationship of relative equals seems like a rare thing, even today.

I am not saying that it's ONLY based on religion but no sane man or woman would disagree that ALL religions do put men before women.

So does society, and it's a religious burdon we need to get rid of.

How can you know love without equality? The answer is obvious.

More proof, if needed, that religion came from humans pushing very obvious agendas. "God told me to" is such a classic justification it's worked for thousands of years.

Yup, that's the thing about religion. The whole thing is just plain selfish. You're supposed to give not just your shirt but you coat as well, and take care of the poor. Hey and don't forget to turn the other cheek so you can have two punches instead of one. I hate those religious rationalizing pigs.

For what it is worth, you at least have made me hate you more than you could ever hate me, so on the scale you carry, i'll lose.

I know i did right, even though it went wrong.

And you can go to hell.

Well, religion is selfish. Instead of being kind and good to others for the sake of being kind and good to others, they do it because they fear the wrath of god or fear going to hell when they die. It's sad that they need to be scared into being a good person. That's probably also the source of the entire mentality that states: "fear = respect".

Yeah, because fear of death is respect to the death dealer, right? No, it just means that as soon as he/she turns their back, they're going to get stabbed. The only reason people of religion stay good "most" of the time is because they believe that this so called "god" can see every single thing every person is doing every second of the day.

What a load of shit, and what a selfish cop-out.

I take it you are good for all the right reasons. Could you tell me what they are and where you got such deep insight into the motivation of religious people? I think maybe you are to immature and inexperienced with religious belief not to realize that there are, at least in my opinion, many who do good because they love God. I think you belittle people, who, while they may believe in what you think is a joke, act in this life much better than you do because that same love of God would keep them from condemning you.

I didn't say all of them.

Secondly, your point is? You've basically repeated my comment, and then added in that you don't think I'm as good of a person as they are. I don't understand the point of that response, honestly, unless it's just that? An insult?

My belittlement is directed at bad people, specific people. Not religious people as a whole.

I'm also sick and tired of hearing people assume atheists are bad. Honestly? The majority I've met have been far kinder than the majority of religious people I've met. Maybe I've been unlucky, though.

 

[Moonbeam]

manowar: I didn't say all of them.

Moonbeam: No? Where didn't you say all of them?

m: Secondly, your point is?

M: I think my point was rather clear. I don't think you have any experience qualifying you to judging religious people and why they do good 'out of fear'. I think you are prejudiced.

m: You've basically repeated my comment,

M: Wan comment. I don't see me saying what you said at all.

m: and then added in that you don't think I'm as good of a person as they are.

M: I don't think there is any love of God and God's creatures in you that stopped you from characterizing religious people, all of them it sure looks like to me, as only doing good out of fear. I don't think anybody who sees you as also loved by God and who knows nothing whatsoever about you, would be able to make the kind of truly negative assumption about you as you have about the faithful.

m: I don't understand the point of that response, honestly, unless it's just that? An insult?

M: I want you to look at your assumptions and see them for what they are, negative and prejudicial and out there like a virus ready to pass their stereotyped thinking on to the next unquestioning mind.

m: My belittlement is directed at bad people, specific people. Not religious people as a whole.

M: You made almost no attempt, in my vision, to do so.

m: I'm also sick and tired of hearing people assume atheists are bad. Honestly? The majority I've met have been far kinder than the majority of religious people I've met. Maybe I've been unlucky, though.

M: Thank you. Here you show some humility and openness to questions. I couldn't ask for more and I thank you. I have met all kinds of all kinds, hehe, and while atheists would probably call me a believer, believers most likely would call me an atheist because, as it happens, I think man created God in his own image and those folk who are good because they love sort of prove it, in my opinion. But whether we created God or He created us, in the long run, I don't think really matters because there no difference either way.

 

[Moonbeam]

So at what age do you think kids should be able to have sex with robots and what age should the robots be? Should pedophiles be able to have sex with childbots? Would robots with male and female organs be OK?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

I am not saying that it's ONLY based on religion but no sane man or woman would disagree that ALL religions do put men before women.

So does society, and it's a religious burdon we need to get rid of.

How can you know love without equality? The answer is obvious.

That has to be the most ignorant post I've read in a while. Are you familiar with all the world's religions? How about Wicca? How's your knowledge of folk religions? Can you even prove what you said with just the ten most common religions?

How can you know love without equality?

Parents love their children even if they are not given equal status in society. People love pets, even if their pets don't have the right to vote.

See Wiccan faith isn't one of the big three, or even fifty, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Parents who love their children like lovers or their pets as lovers will undoubtedly end up in a jail cell, it's not the kind of love i'm talking about and if you do not know the difference you should get yourself a 10-gauge real quick.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So at what age do you think kids should be able to have sex with robots and what age should the robots be? Should pedophiles be able to have sex with childbots? Would robots with male and female organs be OK?

Does it even matter?

I get your point, i know you think i don't but i do, you're thinking about the emotions involved and not the physical acts, but if you want to limit them you'd have to learn to steal fantasies that pedophiles have.

From other posts you have made you have made it very clear that you fear your own emotion and that you are the mirror of the hate you see in others, even if you are always projecting this onto others like some kind of amateur psychopath.. i mean psychologist....

It's interesting because if you have been speaking the truth, the emotions of pedophiles that you hate so much mirrors your own...

Personally, i'd rather have pedos humping robots than real living children.

 

[Moonbeam]

JohnOfSheffield, do you drink before you post. I have not responded to numbers of your post now because I can make no sense at all out of what look to be to be drunken ravings. I have no objection to drunken ravings, mine you, but I don't think there's much sense in responding to them, especially since I can't figure out what you are on about. But I guess I can respond as best I can.

JOS: Does it even matter?

M: I was asking your opinion.

JOS: I get your point, i know you think i don't but i do, you're thinking about the emotions involved and not the physical acts, but if you want to limit them you'd have to learn to steal fantasies that pedophiles have.

M: You get what point? Did I have a point I was making or was my point what I thought it was, asking some questions I think are interesting. I have no fleshed out opinion about what the answers should be.

JOS: From other posts you have made you have made it very clear that you fear your own emotion and that you are the mirror of the hate you see in others, even if you are always projecting this onto others like some kind of amateur psychopath.. i mean psychologist....

M: What I make clear is how afraid of our emotions all of us are. You imagine that because my understanding of how I feel is, if I may say so, probably significantly different than yours and I suspect probably deeper, that what I see, because you can't see it, applies only to me and is about just me. Everything I know about you I know because I know me. So I don't have to project on you my negative feelings. A reformed alcoholic knows every rationalization a drunk will make to keep him drinking because he's been there. He knows drunks while drunks are completely taken by their rationalizations.

JOS: It's interesting because if you have been speaking the truth, the emotions of pedophiles that you hate so much mirrors your own...

M: My job is to see me. I believe that pedophiles are frozen in some childhood trauma that forces them to seek out children to get back door relief from that repression. I don't hate them. I would not allow them to practice their illness if I could prevent it.

JOS: Personally, i'd rather have pedos humping robots than real living children.

M: I think I would agree but if I am right and they are mentally ill, I would prefer to see if maybe there's a cure.

 

[Xenos]

just dropped in on this section of the forum for the first time. found the post very intriguing. lots of humor in the replies. a robot outside woman sounds interesting. matter of fact, gimme a whole harem of 'em.