The holiday hangout will go online tomorrow! If there's anything in the regular subforums that you're going to want to access over the holidays, copy it now while it's still accessible.
Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Robots, AI, and how we treat them

2456

Posts

  • UBSUBS __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    Do you think we should be able to make child robots for people to rape too?

    Pony did not address this in his op it seems.

    a life for aiur
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Caulk Bite wrote: »
    How would be sure that it did not? Especially that any such desensitization would likely occur over a relatively long term, rather than instantly after the first time with a rape-bot.

    In the same way that we know that violent movies, violent video games, porn, etc. do not desensitize individuals.

    Unless we contend that these things to desensitize people. But if that is the case then, presumably, movies and rape-bots ought to be assessed on the same level.

  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pony I don't think I know enough about how rapists think to really participate in this thread.

    I'd like to think that by the time we have robots such as you describe women will actually have equality both under the law and socially and rape would be unthinkable to anyone living in a country wealthy enough that they could buy such a robot.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Klorgnum wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    The reality is, things like rape aren't just about sex, they're about power and actual rapists are usually seeking power over their victims, not just sexual gratification. Rapists don't generally see their victims as people. They don't see what they did as wrong, because "she really wanted it", or because "it doesn't matter, she's just a whore".

    It's a little off topic, but I just finished reading Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate, and he spent a few pages arguing against this. I don't have the book any more and I can't remember most of his argument, but the bit I do remember is along the lines of:

    Most men like sex.
    Some men don't care about how their actions affect other people.
    They feel violence is an acceptable way to get what they want.
    These men want sex and will use violence to get it.

    Why is it that we say rape is about power, rather than the simpler explanation (that they want sex and will hurt people to get it)?
    Why do we consider the motives behind rape to be so much different from an armed robbery (where a person will use violence/threat of violence to obtain money)?

    There's certainly validity to that argument, but going from there:

    If a man rapes because he wants sex and he just don't give a fuck what the other person wants or has convinced himself that the victim "wants it", that's still a lack of empathy and an objectification of the victim as someone lesser in value to the perpetrator.

    It's my opinion that enabling this sort of mindset with accurately physical simulations of the act will only reinforce that mindset, not combat it.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    Pony I don't think I know enough about how rapists think to really participate in this thread.

    I'd like to think that by the time we have robots such as you describe women will actually have equality both under the law and socially and rape would be unthinkable to anyone living in a country wealthy enough that they could buy such a robot.

    I think that's unrealistically optimistic about humanity, quite frankly.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    UBS wrote: »
    Do you think we should be able to make child robots for people to rape too?

    Pony did not address this in his op it seems.

    Although I did address it just now, on this very page.

  • DaenrisDaenris Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pony wrote:
    A person watching an actor have a special FX facsimile of an eyeball being ripped out of their head in the movie "Hostel" knows what they are seeing is fake. Might be a little morbid to enjoy such a thing, but it's certainly not the same thing as doing it and isn't likely to lead to you acting it out on folk.

    However, the same person ripping the eyeball out of a very human-appearing robot (complete with fake blood!) while it screams in (simulated) agony is probably not doing something healthy to their psychological state. Even though the person knows the robot isn't real, even though they know consciously that the robot isn't a person and is only emulating these respones and isn't "really" feeling them... it's still desensitizing them to the act. They are still going through the identical motions of the act.

    Do you think the actors who frequently act in violent movies become desensitized? Have any of them eventually ended up going out and killing people for real because of all the times they did it in the movies?

  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Do you think that the simulated rape of a Realdoll, which is basically equivalent to raping a mannequin, is less hazardous than the simulated rape of a sexbot?

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • UBSUBS __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    UBS wrote: »
    Do you think we should be able to make child robots for people to rape too?

    Pony did not address this in his op it seems.

    Although I did address it just now, on this very page.

    A second before I made that post no less.

    There's one other thing you didn't address though, maybe you'll do it now

    a life for aiur
  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    UBS wrote: »
    Do you think we should be able to make child robots for people to rape too?

    Pony did not address this in his op it seems.

    D:

    I don't really have an ethical reason unless I accept that the adult version is bad also but for some reason this sickens me.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    Maybe. There's certainly an argument to be made for something like, say, pedophilia. It's the consensus opinion in the psychiatric community that a pedophile doesn't choose to be sexually attracted to children, they just are. Some suggest things like "chemical castration" as a way to remedy this, although some might argue that a pedophile allowed to "molest" robotic "children" might be able to keep their condition in check and not visit it upon real children.

    I... I don't think I really agree with that last bit. Porn? Maybe. But robotic simulation? I think that gets too close to normalizing the behavior for the person and makes it harder for them to consciously see it as "wrong".

    Pedophiles know it's wrong to mess around with children the same way a bank robber knows it's wrong to rob a bank. They both do their thing because they think they can get away with it, not because they have a disconnect with reality so I don't see how 'normalizing behavior' or blurring reality comes into play. The pedophile will try to cover up the assault and the bank robber will cover up evidence of his getaway because the both know they did something wrong.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • UBSUBS __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    But it would help protect real children from being raped by giving an outlet for pedophile urges.

    a life for aiur
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Caulk Bite wrote: »
    How would be sure that it did not? Especially that any such desensitization would likely occur over a relatively long term, rather than instantly after the first time with a rape-bot.

    In the same way that we know that violent movies, violent video games, porn, etc. do not desensitize individuals.

    Unless we contend that these things to desensitize people. But if that is the case then, presumably, movies and rape-bots ought to be assessed on the same level.

    But they aren't the same level.

    Movies can desensitize people to violence and other socially reprehensible behavior. So can video games. Not to the extent that Jack Thompson contends, where a boy who plays too much GTA will go out and kill a cop and steal his car and go on a rampage.

    But there's certainly an extent to which all entertainment media has an emotional resonance with people and can, in many instances, desensitize people to the depictions of those acts.

    Robotic simulation, in my opinion, is on a different level than these other media because the simulation is so very close to reality.

    That level of simulation carries with it an associated higher level of desensitization, and that's the shit that really bugs me.

  • UBSUBS __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    Pony have you never heard of LARPing?

    a life for aiur
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    UBS wrote: »
    But it would help protect real children from being raped by giving an outlet for pedophile urges.

    I agree, the ultimate goal is real kids not being raped = good. Everything else is fluff.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • KlorgnumKlorgnum Registered User
    edited January 2010
    Daenris wrote: »
    Pony wrote:
    A person watching an actor have a special FX facsimile of an eyeball being ripped out of their head in the movie "Hostel" knows what they are seeing is fake. Might be a little morbid to enjoy such a thing, but it's certainly not the same thing as doing it and isn't likely to lead to you acting it out on folk.

    However, the same person ripping the eyeball out of a very human-appearing robot (complete with fake blood!) while it screams in (simulated) agony is probably not doing something healthy to their psychological state. Even though the person knows the robot isn't real, even though they know consciously that the robot isn't a person and is only emulating these respones and isn't "really" feeling them... it's still desensitizing them to the act. They are still going through the identical motions of the act.

    Do you think the actors who frequently act in violent movies become desensitized? Have any of them eventually ended up going out and killing people for real because of all the times they did it in the movies?

    You'd never be able to prove causality in this case. Besides, desensitization isn't always going to lead to violence.

  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    Pony I don't think I know enough about how rapists think to really participate in this thread.

    I'd like to think that by the time we have robots such as you describe women will actually have equality both under the law and socially and rape would be unthinkable to anyone living in a country wealthy enough that they could buy such a robot.

    I think that's unrealistically optimistic about humanity, quite frankly.

    You're probably right. humanity constantly disappoints.

    At the same time, I don't expect any realistic sex bots for at least another 20 years, and even then they will cost a lot so it's not like everyone will have one.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Do you think that the simulated rape of a Realdoll, which is basically equivalent to raping a mannequin, is less hazardous than the simulated rape of a sexbot?

    It all depends on the accuracy of the simulation. That's what I'm on about, here.

    We are not currently on a level where a person can get an accurate robotic simulation of say, rape, on a level that I feel is dangerously desensitizing a person to the real act.

    But that is the direction we are potentially traveling in.

    I find that disquieting.

  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Caulk Bite wrote: »
    How would be sure that it did not? Especially that any such desensitization would likely occur over a relatively long term, rather than instantly after the first time with a rape-bot.

    In the same way that we know that violent movies, violent video games, porn, etc. do not desensitize individuals.

    Unless we contend that these things to desensitize people. But if that is the case then, presumably, movies and rape-bots ought to be assessed on the same level.

    But they aren't the same level.

    Movies can desensitize people to violence and other socially reprehensible behavior. So can video games. Not to the extent that Jack Thompson contends, where a boy who plays too much GTA will go out and kill a cop and steal his car and go on a rampage.

    But there's certainly an extent to which all entertainment media has an emotional resonance with people and can, in many instances, desensitize people to the depictions of those acts.

    Robotic simulation, in my opinion, is on a different level than these other media because the simulation is so very close to reality.

    That level of simulation carries with it an associated higher level of desensitization, and that's the shit that really bugs me.
    In that vein, do you feel the same way about 3D gaming, and the coming flourish of motion-tracking controls? There are already prototypes of both a fake gun with a mounted LCD screen that reacts to your movements, and ones with a pico projector that projects what you'd see on the screen on a wall, allowing you to aim exactly like you're in the real world.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • UBSUBS __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    At the same time, I don't expect any realistic sex bots for at least another 20 years, and even then they will cost a lot so it's not like everyone will have one.

    Doesn't matter.

    Most robots will be rented out, not privately owned.

    The rise of robotic brothels.

    a life for aiur
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    UBS wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    At the same time, I don't expect any realistic sex bots for at least another 20 years, and even then they will cost a lot so it's not like everyone will have one.

    Doesn't matter.

    Most robots will be rented out, not privately owned.

    The rise of robotic brothels.
    They... took our jerbs?

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Daenris wrote: »
    Pony wrote:
    A person watching an actor have a special FX facsimile of an eyeball being ripped out of their head in the movie "Hostel" knows what they are seeing is fake. Might be a little morbid to enjoy such a thing, but it's certainly not the same thing as doing it and isn't likely to lead to you acting it out on folk.

    However, the same person ripping the eyeball out of a very human-appearing robot (complete with fake blood!) while it screams in (simulated) agony is probably not doing something healthy to their psychological state. Even though the person knows the robot isn't real, even though they know consciously that the robot isn't a person and is only emulating these respones and isn't "really" feeling them... it's still desensitizing them to the act. They are still going through the identical motions of the act.

    Do you think the actors who frequently act in violent movies become desensitized? Have any of them eventually ended up going out and killing people for real because of all the times they did it in the movies?

    Actors who are called on to portray disturbing or horrific roles or do simulations of terrible things are often emotionally affected by the experience.

    In many cases, there's still a level of detachment from a more accurate simulation because the way movies are made is many steps divorced from how it is shown. For example, very few actors who go gun-blazing in a scene are actually shooting at anything. They're shooting at a target off camera with guns full of blanks. Even if the very next shot shows a person sprawling on the ground squealing in agony from the gunshot wound "inflicted" by the actor's character, those two events in how the movie is made (and thus, the simulation from the standpoint of the actor) are very separate.

    When they aren't, there are many, many accounts of actors who are deeply troubled by the characters or actions they've had to portray. The guy who played serial rapist and murder Paul Bernardo in the movie Karla had nightmares for some time after and needed therapy.

    So, was he desensitized? No. Was he emotionally affected? Very much so.

    Was he fetishizing being a rapist or a murderer going into the production, though? Doubt it.

    And there's the snag of it.

  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    The only counterpoint I can think of to Pony's argument is that I've never heard of a realdoll normalizing/desensitizing someone to necrophelia.

    Which is a pretty poor counterpoint.

    camo_sig2.png
  • DaenrisDaenris Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Klorgnum wrote: »
    Daenris wrote: »
    Pony wrote:
    A person watching an actor have a special FX facsimile of an eyeball being ripped out of their head in the movie "Hostel" knows what they are seeing is fake. Might be a little morbid to enjoy such a thing, but it's certainly not the same thing as doing it and isn't likely to lead to you acting it out on folk.

    However, the same person ripping the eyeball out of a very human-appearing robot (complete with fake blood!) while it screams in (simulated) agony is probably not doing something healthy to their psychological state. Even though the person knows the robot isn't real, even though they know consciously that the robot isn't a person and is only emulating these respones and isn't "really" feeling them... it's still desensitizing them to the act. They are still going through the identical motions of the act.

    Do you think the actors who frequently act in violent movies become desensitized? Have any of them eventually ended up going out and killing people for real because of all the times they did it in the movies?

    You'd never be able to prove causality in this case. Besides, desensitization isn't always going to lead to violence.

    You'd equally never be able to prove causality in any case where someone rapes their sex robot and then goes on to commit a real rape.

    And if the worry about desensitization is not that the person may become more likely to commit the act in question for real, what's the worry?

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    A man in the 1950s walks into a psychiatrists office. "Doctor, I'm having homosexual thoughts. What should I do?" Doctor says, "You must suppress these thoughts. While mere thoughts are harmless, nourishing them will make them manifest in your daily actions and that will ruin you. You will be a social outcast and maybe even lynched. Let's cure you of you homosexuality..."

    A modern-day man walks into a psychiatrist's office. "Doctor, I'm having urges and fantasies to rape women. What should I do?" Doctor says, "You must suppress these thoughts. Fantasies can't harm anyone but if you indulge them, you may lose control one day and let your peers or family know your desires and that will ruin you. You will be a social outcast. Unemployable even if you receive psychological treatment. Let's cure you of these urges..."

    Is this at all correct or am I picking words out of the air?

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Caulk Bite wrote: »
    How would be sure that it did not? Especially that any such desensitization would likely occur over a relatively long term, rather than instantly after the first time with a rape-bot.

    In the same way that we know that violent movies, violent video games, porn, etc. do not desensitize individuals.

    Unless we contend that these things to desensitize people. But if that is the case then, presumably, movies and rape-bots ought to be assessed on the same level.

    But they aren't the same level.

    Movies can desensitize people to violence and other socially reprehensible behavior. So can video games. Not to the extent that Jack Thompson contends, where a boy who plays too much GTA will go out and kill a cop and steal his car and go on a rampage.

    But there's certainly an extent to which all entertainment media has an emotional resonance with people and can, in many instances, desensitize people to the depictions of those acts.

    Robotic simulation, in my opinion, is on a different level than these other media because the simulation is so very close to reality.

    That level of simulation carries with it an associated higher level of desensitization, and that's the shit that really bugs me.
    In that vein, do you feel the same way about 3D gaming, and the coming flourish of motion-tracking controls? There are already prototypes of both a fake gun with a mounted LCD screen that reacts to your movements, and ones with a pico projector that projects what you'd see on the screen on a wall, allowing you to aim exactly like you're in the real world.

    Still not quite the same. As long as you have that barrier of a screen or a device using imagery to convey the experience, it won't have the same emotional impact.

    But, it could get there.

    The issue I have with human-simulation robotics is that it's not VR. It's not 3D. It's physical. You can touch it, strike it, harm it, whatever.

    So, unless VR gets so full-sensory that it makes the digital indistinguishable from the physical, it's not going to have that same level of impact.

    A dude with a VR goggles on going around a 3D environment shooting digital people with his gun-shaped controller is not the same as a guy on some military simulation firing range shooting bullets into the faces of fleeing robots designed to simulate humans.

    Those two things are not the same in how they effect people.

  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Caulk Bite wrote: »
    How would be sure that it did not? Especially that any such desensitization would likely occur over a relatively long term, rather than instantly after the first time with a rape-bot.

    In the same way that we know that violent movies, violent video games, porn, etc. do not desensitize individuals.

    Unless we contend that these things to desensitize people. But if that is the case then, presumably, movies and rape-bots ought to be assessed on the same level.

    But they aren't the same level.

    Movies can desensitize people to violence and other socially reprehensible behavior. So can video games. Not to the extent that Jack Thompson contends, where a boy who plays too much GTA will go out and kill a cop and steal his car and go on a rampage.

    But there's certainly an extent to which all entertainment media has an emotional resonance with people and can, in many instances, desensitize people to the depictions of those acts.

    Robotic simulation, in my opinion, is on a different level than these other media because the simulation is so very close to reality.

    That level of simulation carries with it an associated higher level of desensitization, and that's the shit that really bugs me.
    In that vein, do you feel the same way about 3D gaming, and the coming flourish of motion-tracking controls? There are already prototypes of both a fake gun with a mounted LCD screen that reacts to your movements, and ones with a pico projector that projects what you'd see on the screen on a wall, allowing you to aim exactly like you're in the real world.

    I think Pony's point is that killing an image (3D or not) is drastically different from going on a real hunting trip where the prey is a humanlike robot that screams and dies a bloody death.

    We all agree that playing 3d shooters doesn't turn people into murderers, but how do we know that at some people we won't go too far?

  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    Robotic simulation, in my opinion, is on a different level than these other media because the simulation is so very close to reality.

    That level of simulation carries with it an associated higher level of desensitization, and that's the shit that really bugs me.

    How do you discern proximity to reality? What is the difference between, say, fucking a robot, fucking a fleshlight, and masturbating to a video? What is the actual difference?

    Moreover, with regard to the rape conversation, given that robots lack volition there cannot be actual rape occurring. So, at best, the individual is pretending, mentally, to rape the robot. It seems like this same sort of mental situation could occur in various situations which were not utilizing a robot.

  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    A man in the 1950s walks into a psychiatrists office. "Doctor, I'm having homosexual thoughts. What should I do?" Doctor says, "You must suppress these thoughts. While mere thoughts are harmless, nourishing them will make them manifest in your daily actions and that will ruin you. You will be a social outcast and maybe even lynched. Let's cure you of you homosexuality..."

    A modern-day man walks into a psychiatrist's office. "Doctor, I'm having urges and fantasies to rape women. What should I do?" Doctor says, "You must suppress these thoughts. Fantasies can't harm anyone but if you indulge them, you may lose control one day and let your peers or family know your desires and that will ruin you. You will be a social outcast. Unemployable even if you receive psychological treatment. Let's cure you of these urges..."

    Is this at all correct or am I picking words out of the air?

    Yes, homosexuality is totally the same thing as rape.

    What the fuck man, are you high?

    camo_sig2.png
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Caulk Bite wrote: »
    How would be sure that it did not? Especially that any such desensitization would likely occur over a relatively long term, rather than instantly after the first time with a rape-bot.

    In the same way that we know that violent movies, violent video games, porn, etc. do not desensitize individuals.

    Unless we contend that these things to desensitize people. But if that is the case then, presumably, movies and rape-bots ought to be assessed on the same level.

    But they aren't the same level.

    Movies can desensitize people to violence and other socially reprehensible behavior. So can video games. Not to the extent that Jack Thompson contends, where a boy who plays too much GTA will go out and kill a cop and steal his car and go on a rampage.

    But there's certainly an extent to which all entertainment media has an emotional resonance with people and can, in many instances, desensitize people to the depictions of those acts.

    Robotic simulation, in my opinion, is on a different level than these other media because the simulation is so very close to reality.

    That level of simulation carries with it an associated higher level of desensitization, and that's the shit that really bugs me.
    In that vein, do you feel the same way about 3D gaming, and the coming flourish of motion-tracking controls? There are already prototypes of both a fake gun with a mounted LCD screen that reacts to your movements, and ones with a pico projector that projects what you'd see on the screen on a wall, allowing you to aim exactly like you're in the real world.

    Still not quite the same. As long as you have that barrier of a screen or a device using imagery to convey the experience, it won't have the same emotional impact.

    But, it could get there.

    The issue I have with human-simulation robotics is that it's not VR. It's not 3D. It's physical. You can touch it, strike it, harm it, whatever.

    So, unless VR gets so full-sensory that it makes the digital indistinguishable from the physical, it's not going to have that same level of impact.

    A dude with a VR goggles on going around a 3D environment shooting digital people with his gun-shaped controller is not the same as a guy on some military simulation firing range shooting bullets into the faces of fleeing robots designed to simulate humans.

    Those two things are not the same in how they effect people.
    It doesn't need to be a terrified robot running away though. I wish I could find the article about how the army switched their practice targets from plain bullseyes to human shaped, because soldiers simply weren't firing their weapons in combat. Once they switched to practicing on a paper silhouette of a person, the problem disappeared.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • UBSUBS __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    Meh, killing a robot would be no different than killing an animal.

    Maybe less terrible.

    a life for aiur
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    A man in the 1950s walks into a psychiatrists office. "Doctor, I'm having homosexual thoughts. What should I do?" Doctor says, "You must suppress these thoughts. While mere thoughts are harmless, nourishing them will make them manifest in your daily actions and that will ruin you. You will be a social outcast and maybe even lynched. Let's cure you of you homosexuality..."

    A modern-day man walks into a psychiatrist's office. "Doctor, I'm having urges and fantasies to rape women. What should I do?" Doctor says, "You must suppress these thoughts. Fantasies can't harm anyone but if you indulge them, you may lose control one day and let your peers or family know your desires and that will ruin you. You will be a social outcast. Unemployable even if you receive psychological treatment. Let's cure you of these urges..."

    Is this at all correct or am I picking words out of the air?

    Yes, homosexuality is totally the same thing as rape.

    What the fuck man, are you high?

    I'm not high! I'm making a point about how society reacts to people. We should tolerate would-be rapists and not shun them unless they cause harm and actually rape people! [/confused]

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    UBS wrote: »
    Meh, killing a robot would be no different than killing an animal.

    Maybe less terrible.

    What if the wounded robot asks for mercy? What if it begs for its silicon life?

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    UBS wrote: »
    Meh, killing a robot would be no different than killing an animal.

    Maybe less terrible.

    Animal = Robot?

    that seems problematic.

  • UBSUBS __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    What about people with pedophiliacal urges? Should they be shunned?

    a life for aiur
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    A man in the 1950s walks into a psychiatrists office. "Doctor, I'm having homosexual thoughts. What should I do?" Doctor says, "You must suppress these thoughts. While mere thoughts are harmless, nourishing them will make them manifest in your daily actions and that will ruin you. You will be a social outcast and maybe even lynched. Let's cure you of you homosexuality..."

    A modern-day man walks into a psychiatrist's office. "Doctor, I'm having urges and fantasies to rape women. What should I do?" Doctor says, "You must suppress these thoughts. Fantasies can't harm anyone but if you indulge them, you may lose control one day and let your peers or family know your desires and that will ruin you. You will be a social outcast. Unemployable even if you receive psychological treatment. Let's cure you of these urges..."

    Is this at all correct or am I picking words out of the air?

    Yes, homosexuality is totally the same thing as rape.

    What the fuck man, are you high?
    He worded it piss-poor, but I can kind of see his idea behind it. At least, I hope I can. If you're talking about consenting adults, does simul-rape of a robot count as consenting adults? The robot can't/doesn't need to consent, it's not hurting the one human in the situation (well, aside from the possible psychological effects that we're debating here).

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • UBSUBS __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    UBS wrote: »
    Meh, killing a robot would be no different than killing an animal.

    Maybe less terrible.

    What if the wounded robot asks for mercy? What if it begs for its silicon life?

    A robot has no life.

    Unlike an animal.

    a life for aiur
  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    A man in the 1950s walks into a psychiatrists office. "Doctor, I'm having homosexual thoughts. What should I do?" Doctor says, "You must suppress these thoughts. While mere thoughts are harmless, nourishing them will make them manifest in your daily actions and that will ruin you. You will be a social outcast and maybe even lynched. Let's cure you of you homosexuality..."

    A modern-day man walks into a psychiatrist's office. "Doctor, I'm having urges and fantasies to rape women. What should I do?" Doctor says, "You must suppress these thoughts. Fantasies can't harm anyone but if you indulge them, you may lose control one day and let your peers or family know your desires and that will ruin you. You will be a social outcast. Unemployable even if you receive psychological treatment. Let's cure you of these urges..."

    Is this at all correct or am I picking words out of the air?

    Just because the extreme you outlined above is bad doesn't mean the extreme of handing realistic sex bots to people with rape fetishes is good either.
    I'm not convinced raping sex bots would lead people to raping real people but I can't dismiss the possibility either.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Robotic simulation, in my opinion, is on a different level than these other media because the simulation is so very close to reality.

    That level of simulation carries with it an associated higher level of desensitization, and that's the shit that really bugs me.

    How do you discern proximity to reality? What is the difference between, say, fucking a robot, fucking a fleshlight, and masturbating to a video? What is the actual difference?

    Moreover, with regard to the rape conversation, given that robots lack volition there cannot be actual rape occurring. So, at best, the individual is pretending, mentally, to rape the robot. It seems like this same sort of mental situation could occur in various situations which were not utilizing a robot.

    The level of sensory input, in fact.

    If your senses are close to incapable of distinguishing a simulation of an act from the act itself, even if you consciously know it is a simulation, it is still capable of having a profound psychological effect on you.

    Military simulations are an excellent example. The Canadian Forces did a study years ago of the psychological impact of soldiers in military training exercises that are designed to simulate live combat zones as accurately as possible.

    What they found was that the level of combat stress, emotional responses, and fear-based reactions on the part of the soldiers was real and measurable.

    Even though it was a simulation, even though the soldiers knew consciously that it is a simulation, the more comprehensive and immersive the scenario was the less capable the soldiers were of consciously asserting command of their own reactions and feelings.

    I've also seen this exact same experience with engaging in military simulation scenarios myself, as people's levels of adrenaline, aggression, anxiety, etc. go up and become more tangible and real the more the sensory experiences of the scenario accurately depict reality.

    Fucking a fleshlight isn't the same sensory experience as fucking a convincing human-simulation robot that is screaming and weakly flailing in futility trying to get you to stop. Even though both are simulated, one has a far greater impact on a person on a psychological level.

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Desensitizing. We keep throwing this out there, ZOMG the guy screwing the doll that is playing screamforhelp.wav and not moaninpleasure.wav might somehow become "desensitized" to the pleas of actual victims of an actual rape that he might now commit because he has lost empathy?

    It is still a machine, make to act 99.9% human it remains a machine. Even if we hit the point of AI that it can look, feel, act human. Even if i send my lovebot into a bar, program it to leave at 2am, and ambush it in a dark alley to do horrible things it still remains a fantasy with an expensive prop.

    Hell lets remove the robots completely, take holodecks for instance. Imagine we have the ability to create in absolute perfect detail the most horrific scenario imaginable. Hell lets start off with some rape/torture porn of an 11 year old girl. Sure she may be screaming in pain, sure you are getting a 100% accurate representation of what it is like to flay the skin from her bones, however we cannot make the claim that this will "desensitize" you to the real thing. Nor can we exactly say this is a bad thing.

    Is it bad that a mortician is desensitized to human cadavers?

    Moreover we currently have productive members of society completely lacking in empathy. Just because they do not care about your feelings does not mean they are going to go around doing horrible things to you.

    While creepy as fuck there is nothing inherently wrong with being desensitized to the pleas of the sexbot because you set it to rape victim as opposed to dopey cheerleader. Moreover while completely lacking in empathy toward your fellow humans may cause your problems in social interaction there is also nothing inherently wrong with it. People already have various levels of empathy as it is. Now if the entire human population lost all empathy toward each other we might have some rather large problems, but hopefully we would find another reason to cooperate. Possibly mutual survival. Possibly thunderdome.

    You make the claim the the closer we get to letting people live out their fantasies the more likely they are to take it beyond the fantasy level. If raping a robot is just as good as the real thing, why take all the risks of punishment when they can just keep doing what they are doing? When they grow weary of sobquietly.wav as opposed to climaxloudly.wav they can just get a new personality to spice things up.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
Sign In or Register to comment.