How would you feel about using robots to simulate live targets at the shooting range?
Because that's exactly the direction one company is heading.
That bothers the shit out of me and is exactly the sort of thing I find worrying!
But that is perfect for military applications.
Taranis on
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
I read the whole OP at Pony's request before posting.
It seems like every new entertainment medium gets this argument. You could rewrite the entire OP substituting "books" as the old, non-damaging psychopathic fantasy and "moving pictures" as the new, damaging one. You could say that humans are highly visual creatures, and that when you read a book, you might imagine grasping another human's throat, but when you watch a film of it, when you see the strangulation marks and the hear the desperate gurgles, and a new, sinister sick thrill forms.
I don't think it works that way. You'll find that when a normal audience member or particpant finds no way to separate fantasy from reality, an instant revulsion kicks in. They're not going to want to rape the robot that cries and begs and makes you really believe it, unless they're a real rapist. And being an actual rapist is not something that can be caused by sex toy or a movie or a book or any voluntary experience. That comes from damaging trauma or an innate sickness.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
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.
The problem I see with it is one of pervasiveness and acceptance.
I accept that some people are rape fetisthists. I find this gross and disturbing and sorta offensive, but I'm not going to persecute them about it and I'm not going to go crusading to hamper what they do in the privacy of their homes with other consenting adults who are pretending to not consent.
However, I'm very much against the idea of this just becoming a normal thing and popping up in normal entertainment media, and people seeing it as something that's socially acceptable to do and speak of out in the open.
Call me a stodgy conservative for that, if you like, but that's how I feel.
The more indistinguishable robotic simulations of humanity become, the more important it becomes to understand how we treat them affects us as people. You might say "so what if it desensitizes people?" but the reality is that some levels of desensitization are bad.
A mortician is desensitized about corpses. He isn't desensitized about murdering people. Even if seeing a corpse with it's head partially blown off by a shotgun doesn't phase him, it's not the same thing as being desensitized to shooting a living person in the face with a shotgun.
However, give a person the ability to physically emulate shooting people, and you are desensitizing them to shooting people. That's a bad thing, I reckon! Might be good for your soldiers, I guess? But probably not healthy for the majority of society.
If the majority of society becomes blunted to inflicting pain, death, and torment on physical simulations of human beings, I don't think that has a good net effect on that society. If I stab someone, and they scream, that scream is an integral part of my emotional impetus to recognize that stabbing them hurt them and I shouldn't hurt them and I should feel bad.
If you are dulling your senses to the input of how humans convey suffering to each other on such a comprehensive and accurate level via such realistic simulations, I don't think that's good for you as a person and I don't think that's good for society as a whole.
I think it inevitably devalues human suffering in the mind of society.
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.
I don't feel that you've adequately addressed the present reality of rape fetishism. There are people who legitimately enjoy forcing other people to have sex against their will, and there are also people who enjoy (somewhat paradoxically, I'll grant) being forced to do things that they do not consent to— that is to say, they get off on what is for all intents and purposes actual rape, not merely role play. That sounds really extreme, but it's not so far out there in kink circles. To my knowledge, the types of people who regularly indulge those fantasies are no more likely to commit, er, "real" law-enforcement-involving rape than your average frat guy.
I read the whole OP at Pony's request before posting.
It seems like every new entertainment medium gets this argument. You could rewrite the entire OP substituting "books" as the old, non-damaging psychopathic fantasy and "moving pictures" as the new, damaging one. You could say that humans are highly visual creatures, and that when you read a book, you might imagine grasping another human's throat, but when you watch a film of it, when you see the strangulation marks and the hear the desperate gurgles, and a new, sinister sick thrill forms.
I don't think it works that way. You'll find that when a normal audience member or particpant finds no way to separate fantasy from reality, an instant revulsion kicks in. They're not going to want to rape the robot that cries and begs and makes you really believe it, unless they're a real rapist. And being an actual rapist is not something that can be caused by sex toy or a movie or a book or any voluntary experience. That comes from damaging trauma or an innate sickness.
Honestly? I hope you're right, and I'm wrong. I hope that people would never find enjoyment out of that accurate and realistic a simulation of those sorts of things. I hope that even a person who has rape fantasies would react to a creepily realistic "rape-bot" with the same level of revulsion as anyone else.
But... call my cynical, but I think you're giving people too much credit in the long run.
I haven't read the whole OP yet, I will in a sec. I just wanna say first that we are nowhere close from having robots that are indistinguishable from humans. I certainly don't think they''ll exist within our lifetimes, and they may never exist. Until we reach that point I don't think this is significantly different from a real doll.
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.
That's the question - why can't you dismiss it? Primetime entertainment for Americans in general is a cesspit of murder and sex already so what's one more vice to throw on the pile? By vice I mean simulated rape. Is it possible you don't dismiss the connection because rape repulses you like homosexuality repulses Christian fundamentalists and you're looking for reasons to justify your repulsion.
On the other hand (and this is the reasonable hand, mind you) I wouldn't let a pyromaniac play around with a book of matches even if he or she honestly didn't intend to burn any buildings down that day. Crazy people don't get fire or sex-bots for their own good.
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.
I don't feel that you've adequately addressed the present reality of rape fetishism. There are people who legitimately enjoy forcing other people to have sex against their will, and there are also people who enjoy (somewhat paradoxically, I'll grant) being forced to do things that they do not consent to— that is to say, they get off on what is for all intents and purposes actual rape, not merely role play. That sounds really extreme, but it's not so far out there in kink circles. To my knowledge, the types of people who regularly indulge those fantasies are no more likely to commit, er, "real" law-enforcement-involving rape than your average frat guy.
Probably less.
I think I actually addressed that point quite directly, actually!
In the first post in this thread, no less.
They like the simulations, they aren't desiring the real experience. Yet, the more accurate and realistic the simulations become, I think the more callous people become to the difference between the two.
If we treat machines that look and act like us like sex slaves, target practice, torture subjects, and so on...
How long is it until we just don't care about that difference anymore?
I haven't read the whole OP yet, I will in a sec. I just wanna say first that we are nowhere close from having robots that are indistinguishable from humans. I certainly don't think they''ll exist within our lifetimes, and they may never exist. Until we reach that point I don't think this is significantly different from a real doll.
I agree on an intelligence level, but I don't agree on a physical level.
I don't think we'll see "thinking robots" within our lifetime that have intelligence even approaching sapient.
But robots that can act like they are? Man, to some extent, we are already there.
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.
I don't feel that you've adequately addressed the present reality of rape fetishism. There are people who legitimately enjoy forcing other people to have sex against their will, and there are also people who enjoy (somewhat paradoxically, I'll grant) being forced to do things that they do not consent to— that is to say, they get off on what is for all intents and purposes actual rape, not merely role play. That sounds really extreme, but it's not so far out there in kink circles. To my knowledge, the types of people who regularly indulge those fantasies are no more likely to commit, er, "real" law-enforcement-involving rape than your average frat guy.
Probably less.
I think I actually addressed that point quite directly, actually!
In the first post in this thread, no less.
They like the simulations, they aren't desiring the real experience. Yet, the more accurate and realistic the simulations become, I think the more callous people become to the difference between the two.
If we treat machines that look and act like us like sex slaves, target practice, torture subjects, and so on...
How long is it until we just don't care about that difference anymore?
That's what I'm saying— I think you're wrong about that.
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.
That's the question - why can't you dismiss it? Primetime entertainment for Americans in general is a cesspit of murder and sex already so what's one more vice to throw on the pile? By vice I mean simulated rape. Is it possible you don't dismiss the connection because rape repulses you like homosexuality repulses Christian fundamentalists and you're looking for reasons to justify your repulsion.
On the other hand (and this is the reasonable hand, mind you) I wouldn't let a pyromaniac play around with a book of matches even if he or she honestly didn't intend to burn any buildings down that day. Crazy people don't get fire or sex-bots for their own good.
That's my problem with giving "child-bots" to pedophiles. I feel that it doesn't help them actually really control or come to terms with those behaviors or feelings, it just gives them an "outlet" for them.
Would it keep them from molesting real children? Not necessarily. Would it only reinforce their bodies' feelings of pleasure and enjoyment from the acts and psychologically reinforce that enjoying it like they do is okay?
I haven't read the whole OP yet, I will in a sec. I just wanna say first that we are nowhere close from having robots that are indistinguishable from humans. I certainly don't think they''ll exist within our lifetimes, and they may never exist. Until we reach that point I don't think this is significantly different from a real doll.
I agree on an intelligence level, but I don't agree on a physical level.
I don't think we'll see "thinking robots" within our lifetime that have intelligence even approaching sapient.
But robots that can act like they are? Man, to some extent, we are already there.
pfft. It would be immediately obvious to anyone that this is a robot, and not a real person, even if you're only using it for a preprogrammed sex routine. humans are amazingly sensitive to small variations in the human figure, which is part of the reason why it's so difficult to draw a human well.
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.
That's the question - why can't you dismiss it? Primetime entertainment for Americans in general is a cesspit of murder and sex already so what's one more vice to throw on the pile? By vice I mean simulated rape. Is it possible you don't dismiss the connection because rape repulses you like homosexuality repulses Christian fundamentalists and you're looking for reasons to justify your repulsion.
On the other hand (and this is the reasonable hand, mind you) I wouldn't let a pyromaniac play around with a book of matches even if he or she honestly didn't intend to burn any buildings down that day. Crazy people don't get fire or sex-bots for their own good.
That's my problem with giving "child-bots" to pedophiles. I feel that it doesn't help them actually really control or come to terms with those behaviors or feelings, it just gives them an "outlet" for them.
Would it keep them from molesting real children? Not necessarily. Would it only reinforce their bodies' feelings of pleasure and enjoyment from the acts and psychologically reinforce that enjoying it like they do is okay?
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.
So then the problem is not the act which occurs, but the intention and understanding of the situation.
Robots cannot be raped given that robots have no volition.
Therefore, what is problematic in "raping a robot" is not the act of rape (since it is not rape) but rather the intention of the acting agent.
So, we're punishing / finding fault with intention. Right?
That's my problem with giving "child-bots" to pedophiles. I feel that it doesn't help them actually really control or come to terms with those behaviors or feelings, it just gives them an "outlet" for them.
Would it keep them from molesting real children? Not necessarily. Would it only reinforce their bodies' feelings of pleasure and enjoyment from the acts and psychologically reinforce that enjoying it like they do is okay?
You betcha.
Again, the ultimate goal is not raping real children = good. If modern day giants of psychology agree that childlike sex-bots will curb the pedophile's lust, I won't say boo. If it works, then go ahead and do it no matter how gross it is. That's pragmatic!
EDIT: Wait, no, I take the pragmatic solution back. The easiest way to deter a pedophile is to forcibly castrate or kill him. That's cruel. Pragmatism sucks.
emnmnme on
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
I read the whole OP at Pony's request before posting.
It seems like every new entertainment medium gets this argument. You could rewrite the entire OP substituting "books" as the old, non-damaging psychopathic fantasy and "moving pictures" as the new, damaging one. You could say that humans are highly visual creatures, and that when you read a book, you might imagine grasping another human's throat, but when you watch a film of it, when you see the strangulation marks and the hear the desperate gurgles, and a new, sinister sick thrill forms.
I don't think it works that way. You'll find that when a normal audience member or particpant finds no way to separate fantasy from reality, an instant revulsion kicks in. They're not going to want to rape the robot that cries and begs and makes you really believe it, unless they're a real rapist. And being an actual rapist is not something that can be caused by sex toy or a movie or a book or any voluntary experience. That comes from damaging trauma or an innate sickness.
This was my first reaction as well, at least on an intellectual level. New media are bad, yadda yadda. On a more, like, instinctive level or something, I found the thought of rape-bots icky. And I think I actually agree, ultimately, with Pony's point .
There is also that thing where "porn addicts" (if porn is an addiction. I'm pretty sure it can be, like almost everything, e.g. working out) start with softcore porn and then need progressively more fucked-up stuff to get off.
And the harm could be worse still. Professor Jennings Bryant, a US psychologist, wanted to discover what happens to men when they are exposed to massive amounts of porn. His test subjects quickly shifted from being happy with vanilla porn, and started to seek out more and more extreme strands. Men who before had said they found violent or rape-fantasy porn unacceptable were soon eagerly consuming it.
At the next link in the chain, Canadian psychologists James Check and Ted Guloien exposed men to massive amounts of rape-fantasy porn, and discovered that they became more and more likely to agree with statements like "rape isn't so bad", "women complain about rape too much" and "some women enjoy being raped" as they were exposed to more and more porn. So is one of the features of this new age - in addition to the welcome growth in sexual openness - a wave of increased sexual assaults?
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.
I don't feel that you've adequately addressed the present reality of rape fetishism. There are people who legitimately enjoy forcing other people to have sex against their will, and there are also people who enjoy (somewhat paradoxically, I'll grant) being forced to do things that they do not consent to— that is to say, they get off on what is for all intents and purposes actual rape, not merely role play. That sounds really extreme, but it's not so far out there in kink circles. To my knowledge, the types of people who regularly indulge those fantasies are no more likely to commit, er, "real" law-enforcement-involving rape than your average frat guy.
Probably less.
I think I actually addressed that point quite directly, actually!
In the first post in this thread, no less.
They like the simulations, they aren't desiring the real experience. Yet, the more accurate and realistic the simulations become, I think the more callous people become to the difference between the two.
If we treat machines that look and act like us like sex slaves, target practice, torture subjects, and so on...
How long is it until we just don't care about that difference anymore?
That's what I'm saying— I think you're wrong about that.
I re-read your post, and found I missed a key sentence in what you said, so sorry about that.
Addressing what you said... to be perfectly honest, I don't think having a psychological desire to be raped is really healthy and I don't think that having a robotic "outlet" for that issue is healthy either.
Likewise, when it comes to people who pretty much just want to rape folk... I don't think giving them robots to rape is good either.
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.
That's the question - why can't you dismiss it? Primetime entertainment for Americans in general is a cesspit of murder and sex already so what's one more vice to throw on the pile? By vice I mean simulated rape. Is it possible you don't dismiss the connection because rape repulses you like homosexuality repulses Christian fundamentalists and you're looking for reasons to justify your repulsion.
On the other hand (and this is the reasonable hand, mind you) I wouldn't let a pyromaniac play around with a book of matches even if he or she honestly didn't intend to burn any buildings down that day. Crazy people don't get fire or sex-bots for their own good.
That's my problem with giving "child-bots" to pedophiles. I feel that it doesn't help them actually really control or come to terms with those behaviors or feelings, it just gives them an "outlet" for them.
Would it keep them from molesting real children? Not necessarily. Would it only reinforce their bodies' feelings of pleasure and enjoyment from the acts and psychologically reinforce that enjoying it like they do is okay?
You betcha.
Any studies showing this?
Not exactly.
I've heard of studies that claim pedophiles almost always watch large amounts of child porn before actually doing anything to a real child.
I think there is a natural inclination to want more and increasingly naughty things as you become desensitized.
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.
So then the problem is not the act which occurs, but the intention and understanding of the situation.
Robots cannot be raped given that robots have no volition.
Therefore, what is problematic in "raping a robot" is not the act of rape (since it is not rape) but rather the intention of the acting agent.
So, we're punishing / finding fault with intention. Right?
We're not "punishing" anything, or suggesting that it should be punished.
I am finding fault not even necessarily with the intent and motivation, but rather with the net effect.
If a person has a rape fetish and simulates rape with his sex-bot in the privacy of his own home and is otherwise a happy and well-adjusted person, I honestly do not care.
My problem is the idea that engaging in his simulation will damage his ability to empathize with others or recognize the real thing as an abominable crime.
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.
The more the accuracy of the simulation the better it deals with the urges.
There is a distinction here that is important. If we are talking about people who do not have an aversion to the act in the first place(except that its illegal and they know its wrong). I.E. people with rape fantasies or pedophiles then there really is no issue with the application. Since these people would be able to use the simulation to reduce their urges in the same way that normal people have sex and reduce their urge to have sex or eat chocolate to reduce their urge to each chocolate. In the same way that diet soda is a better alternative for heavy soda drinkers than sugared soda, sexbots would be a better alternative for sexual deviants than actually doing the real thing.
The other side of this distinction is if we are talking about people who DO have an aversion to the act. If they are exposed to it that aversion can go away. This is the military effect we are talking about. People have an aversion to killing. Simulated killing reduces that aversion. The question then becomes more an issue of segregating the therapeutic uses with non-therapeutic uses, limiting accidental exposure and all the rest. Sorta like how we handle prescription drugs. Though another question that comes off of that is whether or not we can simply self regulate in buying these products. With the military, the desensitization is easy to get working, because its forced. But if its not forced can it really occur to the extent that we are proposing? Will the natural aversion to these horrible acts prevent people from simulating them?
A third aspect is hot cognition. There was a study done at MIT whereby males in the student body were asked to complete a questionnaire about sex. They completed the same questionnaire twice. Once when they were functioning normally and once when they were masturbating. Unsurprisingly the "yes" responses to the negative questions such as "would you ignore a woman who was saying 'no'?" or "could you find a 12 year old attractive?" all went up significant amounts.
Whether or not these types of simulated experiences have any effect on that type of change due to desensitization is another issue, and one that we probably won't be able to study due to ethical reasons(after all, we are positing that this can cause long term negative consequences for the participants). I have a feeling however, that they do not.
The problem I see with it is one of pervasiveness and acceptance.
I accept that some people are rape fetisthists. I find this gross and disturbing and sorta offensive, but I'm not going to persecute them about it and I'm not going to go crusading to hamper what they do in the privacy of their homes with other consenting adults who are pretending to not consent.
However, I'm very much against the idea of this just becoming a normal thing and popping up in normal entertainment media, and people seeing it as something that's socially acceptable to do and speak of out in the open.
Call me a stodgy conservative for that, if you like, but that's how I feel.
Certain groups feel very similarly about other things, be it damn them gays and their wanting marriage, or damn them furries and their wanting social acceptance, or damn them wife swappers and their violating their marriage vows, or damn them chronic masturbating hobos and their inability to do anything else.
Masturbation is a normal thing, more expensive props are just that. Heck lets make it more creepy with doll swapping parties, or hell AI sharing like we do music now. "Dude you really have to try Suzie127 for your sexbot, her reactions are the best" "Send me a copy, right now im enjoying AndrAIa 02 and man did they get the thigh control perfect".
People already group together to share common interests, even ones some of us find creepy.
The more indistinguishable robotic simulations of humanity become, the more important it becomes to understand how we treat them affects us as people. You might say "so what if it desensitizes people?" but the reality is that some levels of desensitization are bad.
A mortician is desensitized about corpses. He isn't desensitized about murdering people. Even if seeing a corpse with it's head partially blown off by a shotgun doesn't phase him, it's not the same thing as being desensitized to shooting a living person in the face with a shotgun.
However, give a person the ability to physically emulate shooting people, and you are desensitizing them to shooting people. That's a bad thing, I reckon! Might be good for your soldiers, I guess? But probably not healthy for the majority of society.
If the majority of society becomes blunted to inflicting pain, death, and torment on physical simulations of human beings, I don't think that has a good net effect on that society. If I stab someone, and they scream, that scream is an integral part of my emotional impetus to recognize that stabbing them hurt them and I shouldn't hurt them and I should feel bad.
If you are dulling your senses to the input of how humans convey suffering to each other on such a comprehensive and accurate level via such realistic simulations, I don't think that's good for you as a person and I don't think that's good for society as a whole.
I think it inevitably devalues human suffering in the mind of society.
You have a ton of qualifiers here. Some levels of desensitization are bad. What levels? How do we measure them? Sure shooting realistic representations of people MIGHT be bad for some people, heck it might be bad for soldiers. The training itself might cause mental problems to prepare them for a situation they might never face. Shooting taliban bot and watching his simuorgans spray over the wall might seriously damage a potential soldier whos career would have been no more eventful than sitting on base shuffling paper.
What about the people that killing the simulations would be good for? Some people really want to hoist the black flag and start slitting throats. Giving them an outlet would be good and healthy for them.
Empathy does not always stop people from dicking over their fellow humans, usually it is fear of getting caught or reprisal. Removing empathy from the equation does not remove the existing boundaries we operate in under our social contract. You can be X amount of an empathicless dick before we toss you in jail and forget about you.
No matter how realistic you are still dulling your senses on a machine, it will always remain a machine. You will know it is a machine. Now if you want to pose the argument that what if you are dropped into a holodeck without your knowledge and do not know it is a machine then yes it may affect you differently. At the end of the day how you knowingly act toward machines, and how you knowingly act toward people are different. If you cannot tell the difference then it is up to you to decide on which end of the spectrum to err.
Given the amount of human suffering in the world today we actively ignore, the value of suffering in society is already pretty low.
That's my problem with giving "child-bots" to pedophiles. I feel that it doesn't help them actually really control or come to terms with those behaviors or feelings, it just gives them an "outlet" for them.
Would it keep them from molesting real children? Not necessarily. Would it only reinforce their bodies' feelings of pleasure and enjoyment from the acts and psychologically reinforce that enjoying it like they do is okay?
You betcha.
Again, the ultimate goal is not raping real children = good. If modern day giants of psychology agree that childlike sex-bots will curb the pedophile's lust, I won't say boo. If it works, then go ahead and do it no matter how gross it is. That's pragmatic!
Would it be a good idea to give pedophiles simulated child pornography?
Like, drawn or CGI stuff?
If they had that, and because of that, didn't molest children would that be okay?
(I think it would be, so long as you can guarantee me it is making them less likely to abuse children, and not desensitizing them towards progressing further towards the real act, and good luck proving that point)
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.
So then the problem is not the act which occurs, but the intention and understanding of the situation.
Robots cannot be raped given that robots have no volition.
Therefore, what is problematic in "raping a robot" is not the act of rape (since it is not rape) but rather the intention of the acting agent.
So, we're punishing / finding fault with intention. Right?
It's not finding fault with intention, I only really care about real harm.
If someone goes home and rapes their realistic sex bot every night they might just ignore a real woman's please for help if they walked right past one being attacked.
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.
So then the problem is not the act which occurs, but the intention and understanding of the situation.
Robots cannot be raped given that robots have no volition.
Therefore, what is problematic in "raping a robot" is not the act of rape (since it is not rape) but rather the intention of the acting agent.
So, we're punishing / finding fault with intention. Right?
It's not finding fault with intention, I only really care about real harm.
If someone goes home and rapes their realistic sex bot every night they might just ignore a real woman's please for help if they walked right past one being attacked.
And there's a problem I have, right there.
I'm not even saying that a person who uses a rape-simulator-robot will be always desensitized to real rape or that they'd be more inclined to actually rape people (although it's certainly a very high risk, unacceptably high in my opinion).
What I am saying is, the less value people pay to the depiction of human suffering as it becomes more accurate and realistic, the more overall negative net effect this has on societal empathy and people's willingness to give a shit.
Would it be a good idea to give pedophiles simulated child pornography?
Like, drawn or CGI stuff?
If they had that, and because of that, didn't molest children would that be okay?
(I think it would be, so long as you can guarantee me it is making them less likely to abuse children, and not desensitizing them towards progressing further towards the real act, and good luck proving that point)
You keep saying that its going to desensitize them towards the real act. Yet you have no proof that they are sensitized towards the act. In fact, almost by definition, we are talking about people who already are. You're talking about pedophiles as if they don't want to fuck children. No, they do want to fuck children. They don't because they know either that its wrong or that they could get caught. Simulating the experience wont make them think its less wrong since that is formed from social norms and are constantly being reinforced. It only might if they are removed from society. But, if that is the case, then the question of simulation is irrelevant, they are going to be doing that in their heads anyway. The question of being caught, enforcement and all that, is entirely outside of the scope of our question and does not change.
Then of course we have the issue of substitution. And good luck proving that substitutions do not reduce the incident of their substitutes[because they do]
OK so after finishing the OP, here are my thoughts on the matter:
It seems like there's basically 2 negative side effects that you're worried about from this. 1 is that if you're using a sex-bot to simulate rape, then it might lead some people to start doing actual rape. the second is that that using a sex-bot at all is kind of creepy, and it can be damaging to a person's psyche and overall wellbeing, even if all they do with it is very standard sex.
I think the second point is a serious issue, and I think it's pretty obvious that this can also happen to people that watch too much porn or violent movies. Which isn't to say that those things should be illegal, or that they are bad at all in small doses, but people do need to be careful that they don't get addicted to those things. This is one of those things that we should probably talk to teenagers about in sex ed class, but of course that never happens because we're too busy trying to convince them to never have sex ever.
for the first danger, I do not think that there's any chance that this would cause people to start raping people in real life. I think that, for the foreseeable future, even the most advanced sex bot will be obviously nonhuman, so the realism of a rape simulation would be a lot less than just having a human partner who plays along in the fantasy with you. People are generally smart enough to distinguish fantasy from reality, and it's just as likely that this could give a would-be rapist an alternative outlet.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
And the harm could be worse still. Professor Jennings Bryant, a US psychologist, wanted to discover what happens to men when they are exposed to massive amounts of porn. His test subjects quickly shifted from being happy with vanilla porn, and started to seek out more and more extreme strands. Men who before had said they found violent or rape-fantasy porn unacceptable were soon eagerly consuming it.
At the next link in the chain, Canadian psychologists James Check and Ted Guloien exposed men to massive amounts of rape-fantasy porn, and discovered that they became more and more likely to agree with statements like "rape isn't so bad", "women complain about rape too much" and "some women enjoy being raped" as they were exposed to more and more porn. So is one of the features of this new age - in addition to the welcome growth in sexual openness - a wave of increased sexual assaults?
And the harm could be worse still. Professor Jennings Bryant, a US psychologist, wanted to discover what happens to men when they are exposed to massive amounts of porn. His test subjects quickly shifted from being happy with vanilla porn, and started to seek out more and more extreme strands. Men who before had said they found violent or rape-fantasy porn unacceptable were soon eagerly consuming it.
At the next link in the chain, Canadian psychologists James Check and Ted Guloien exposed men to massive amounts of rape-fantasy porn, and discovered that they became more and more likely to agree with statements like "rape isn't so bad", "women complain about rape too much" and "some women enjoy being raped" as they were exposed to more and more porn. So is one of the features of this new age - in addition to the welcome growth in sexual openness - a wave of increased sexual assaults?
And the harm could be worse still. Professor Jennings Bryant, a US psychologist, wanted to discover what happens to men when they are exposed to massive amounts of porn. His test subjects quickly shifted from being happy with vanilla porn, and started to seek out more and more extreme strands. Men who before had said they found violent or rape-fantasy porn unacceptable were soon eagerly consuming it.
At the next link in the chain, Canadian psychologists James Check and Ted Guloien exposed men to massive amounts of rape-fantasy porn, and discovered that they became more and more likely to agree with statements like "rape isn't so bad", "women complain about rape too much" and "some women enjoy being raped" as they were exposed to more and more porn. So is one of the features of this new age - in addition to the welcome growth in sexual openness - a wave of increased sexual assaults?
OK so after finishing the OP, here are my thoughts on the matter:
It seems like there's basically 2 negative side effects that you're worried about from this. 1 is that if you're using a sex-bot to simulate rape, then it might lead some people to start doing actual rape. the second is that that using a sex-bot at all is kind of creepy, and it can be damaging to a person's psyche and overall wellbeing, even if all they do with it is very standard sex.
I think the second point is a serious issue, and I think it's pretty obvious that this can also happen to people that watch too much porn or violent movies. Which isn't to say that those things should be illegal, or that they are bad at all in small doses, but people do need to be careful that they don't get addicted to those things. This is one of those things that we should probably talk to teenagers about in sex ed class, but of course that never happens because we're too busy trying to convince them to never have sex ever.
for the first danger, I do not think that there's any chance that this would cause people to start raping people in real life. I think that, for the foreseeable future, even the most advanced sex bot will be obviously nonhuman, so the realism of a rape simulation would be a lot less than just having a human partner who plays along in the fantasy with you. People are generally smart enough to distinguish fantasy from reality, and it's just as likely that this could give a would-be rapist an alternative outlet.
There's also a 3rd negative side effect, which I touched on but didn't elaborate enough on, I feel: The net effect of a society where these sorts of behaviors against machines is more and more permissible is one that is going down a road where people are less sensitive towards these sorts of things happening to people.
What I am saying is, the less value people pay to the depiction of human suffering as it becomes more accurate and realistic, the more overall negative net effect this has on societal empathy and people's willingness to give a shit.
This already happens, be it Kitty Genovese, or high school girls gang raped and no one does a thing. The question is not "Will sexbots make people care less about other people" but is "How fucked up are we already that we will stand by and watch horrible shit happen and do nothing to help."
What I am saying is, the less value people pay to the depiction of human suffering as it becomes more accurate and realistic, the more overall negative net effect this has on societal empathy and people's willingness to give a shit.
I keep reading this over and over again and I can't quite get it. It sounds right on the surface but then I think of human suffering in general. You're saying if we don't pay 'proper' attention/respect to the victims of cruelty and the acts of suffering that create the victims, we grow numb to suffering in general. If we forget how terrible it was for the slaves, we'll have slavery again? If I don't watch Roots, I'm worse off for it because I'd be more prone to tolerate slavery? Roots was accurate. Amistad was realistic.
This means if I want to be sure that rape is bad, I should witness an accurate, realistic simulated rape and hear the stories of rape victims or else I won't broaden my horizons or, worse, I eventually won't give a shit about rape? That doesn't sound right at all.
EDIT: That's worded badly. Overexposure to rape makes us less sensitive to rape. But we still need exposure to rape to be respectful of rape, right? Can't we just say rape is bad with next to no exposure?
emnmnme on
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
And the harm could be worse still. Professor Jennings Bryant, a US psychologist, wanted to discover what happens to men when they are exposed to massive amounts of porn. His test subjects quickly shifted from being happy with vanilla porn, and started to seek out more and more extreme strands. Men who before had said they found violent or rape-fantasy porn unacceptable were soon eagerly consuming it.
At the next link in the chain, Canadian psychologists James Check and Ted Guloien exposed men to massive amounts of rape-fantasy porn, and discovered that they became more and more likely to agree with statements like "rape isn't so bad", "women complain about rape too much" and "some women enjoy being raped" as they were exposed to more and more porn. So is one of the features of this new age - in addition to the welcome growth in sexual openness - a wave of increased sexual assaults?
reposted from my last post, think it got lost in static. There are actual studies in support of the OP's point, apparently.
yeah but that's just an argument against porn, in general.
Obviously, it its kind of hard to conduct studies on the, as of yet, non-existent sex-bots. In my eyes, porn is probably the best substitute subject, especially seeing as how a lot of people in this thread are arguing that the sex-bots won't be bad because porn isn't.
Not that i'm against porn or anything, but I do think it has the potential to de-sensitize if used in an unhealthy or excessive way. Moderation and conscious behaviour! Blandness for the blandness god!
And the harm could be worse still. Professor Jennings Bryant, a US psychologist, wanted to discover what happens to men when they are exposed to massive amounts of porn. His test subjects quickly shifted from being happy with vanilla porn, and started to seek out more and more extreme strands. Men who before had said they found violent or rape-fantasy porn unacceptable were soon eagerly consuming it.
At the next link in the chain, Canadian psychologists James Check and Ted Guloien exposed men to massive amounts of rape-fantasy porn, and discovered that they became more and more likely to agree with statements like "rape isn't so bad", "women complain about rape too much" and "some women enjoy being raped" as they were exposed to more and more porn. So is one of the features of this new age - in addition to the welcome growth in sexual openness - a wave of increased sexual assaults?
reposted from my last post, think it got lost in static. There are actual studies in support of the OP's point, apparently.
yeah but that's just an argument against porn, in general.
Obviously, it its kind of hard to conduct studies on the, as of yet, non-existent sex-bots. In my eyes, porn is probably the best substitute subject, especially seeing as how a lot of people in this thread are arguing that the sex-bots won't be bad because porn isn't.
Not that i'm against porn or anything, but I do think it has the potential to de-sensitize if used in an unhealthy or excessive way. Moderation and conscious behaviour! Blandness for the blandness god!
Oh yeah, I agree. But it seems like an obvious case where we should warn people about the danger, but not make it illegal.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
And the harm could be worse still. Professor Jennings Bryant, a US psychologist, wanted to discover what happens to men when they are exposed to massive amounts of porn. His test subjects quickly shifted from being happy with vanilla porn, and started to seek out more and more extreme strands. Men who before had said they found violent or rape-fantasy porn unacceptable were soon eagerly consuming it.
At the next link in the chain, Canadian psychologists James Check and Ted Guloien exposed men to massive amounts of rape-fantasy porn, and discovered that they became more and more likely to agree with statements like "rape isn't so bad", "women complain about rape too much" and "some women enjoy being raped" as they were exposed to more and more porn. So is one of the features of this new age - in addition to the welcome growth in sexual openness - a wave of increased sexual assaults?
reposted from my last post, think it got lost in static. There are actual studies in support of the OP's point, apparently.
yeah but that's just an argument against porn, in general.
Obviously, it its kind of hard to conduct studies on the, as of yet, non-existent sex-bots. In my eyes, porn is probably the best substitute subject, especially seeing as how a lot of people in this thread are arguing that the sex-bots won't be bad because porn isn't.
Not that i'm against porn or anything, but I do think it has the potential to de-sensitize if used in an unhealthy or excessive way. Moderation and conscious behaviour! Blandness for the blandness god!
Oh yeah, I agree. But it seems like an obvious case where we should warn people about the danger, but not make it illegal.
Absolutely! I am not talking about making anything illegal here, at all. I am for the legalization of all victim-less crime, in fact (But which crimes are victimless? Well...). And combating stuff like this with information, treatment, counseling etc.
Oh yeah, I agree. But it seems like an obvious case where we should warn people about the danger, but not make it illegal.
I agree with this; educate people to the risks, but don't ban something that could be used responsibly.
I'm someone who HAS a few fetishes that would be harmful if acted, but is repulsed by the idea of actually DOING them, and I really can't see this being any different from porn. In the end, the vast majority of people are going to be capable of making a disconnect between highly-realistic simulated rape and actual harming-a-person rape.
Same thing for people who are sexually attracted to children; I daresay the number of people with pedophiliac tendencies is much higher than the number who act on them, because most people have basic human decency and know it would be fucking wrong.
For a related anecdote, I remember back when that video of the guy being executed by terrorists went around; despite the high amount of highly-realistic violent content I'd seen in movies and games, it was a fucking horrifying thing to watch, and made me physically sick. There is a difference.
The History Channel had a doc on Joe Stalin. There was a black and white clip of traitorous Russians being executed. Real people died and I didn't feel any different while I watched it. I was in tears during Hotel Rwanda and choked up during Grave of the Fireflies, though, so maybe a death has to be broadcast in color before I feel empathy... :P
Oh yeah, I agree. But it seems like an obvious case where we should warn people about the danger, but not make it illegal.
I agree with this; educate people to the risks, but don't ban something that could be used responsibly.
I'm someone who HAS a few fetishes that would be harmful if acted, but is repulsed by the idea of actually DOING them, and I really can't see this being any different from porn. In the end, the vast majority of people are going to be capable of making a disconnect between highly-realistic simulated rape and actual harming-a-person rape.
Same thing for people who are sexually attracted to children; I daresay the number of people with pedophiliac tendencies is much higher than the number who act on them, because most people have basic human decency and know it would be fucking wrong.
For a related anecdote, I remember back when that video of the guy being executed by terrorists went around; despite the high amount of highly-realistic violent content I'd seen in movies and games, it was a fucking horrifying thing to watch, and made me physically sick. There is a difference.
Absolutely! I am not talking about making anything illegal here, at all. I am for the legalization of all victim-less crime, in fact (But which crimes are victimless? Well...). And combating stuff like this with information, treatment, counseling etc.
Posts
But that is perfect for military applications.
It seems like every new entertainment medium gets this argument. You could rewrite the entire OP substituting "books" as the old, non-damaging psychopathic fantasy and "moving pictures" as the new, damaging one. You could say that humans are highly visual creatures, and that when you read a book, you might imagine grasping another human's throat, but when you watch a film of it, when you see the strangulation marks and the hear the desperate gurgles, and a new, sinister sick thrill forms.
I don't think it works that way. You'll find that when a normal audience member or particpant finds no way to separate fantasy from reality, an instant revulsion kicks in. They're not going to want to rape the robot that cries and begs and makes you really believe it, unless they're a real rapist. And being an actual rapist is not something that can be caused by sex toy or a movie or a book or any voluntary experience. That comes from damaging trauma or an innate sickness.
What if the robot disagrees that it has no life?
Johnny-5 is alive, dammit!
The problem I see with it is one of pervasiveness and acceptance.
I accept that some people are rape fetisthists. I find this gross and disturbing and sorta offensive, but I'm not going to persecute them about it and I'm not going to go crusading to hamper what they do in the privacy of their homes with other consenting adults who are pretending to not consent.
However, I'm very much against the idea of this just becoming a normal thing and popping up in normal entertainment media, and people seeing it as something that's socially acceptable to do and speak of out in the open.
Call me a stodgy conservative for that, if you like, but that's how I feel.
The more indistinguishable robotic simulations of humanity become, the more important it becomes to understand how we treat them affects us as people. You might say "so what if it desensitizes people?" but the reality is that some levels of desensitization are bad.
A mortician is desensitized about corpses. He isn't desensitized about murdering people. Even if seeing a corpse with it's head partially blown off by a shotgun doesn't phase him, it's not the same thing as being desensitized to shooting a living person in the face with a shotgun.
However, give a person the ability to physically emulate shooting people, and you are desensitizing them to shooting people. That's a bad thing, I reckon! Might be good for your soldiers, I guess? But probably not healthy for the majority of society.
If the majority of society becomes blunted to inflicting pain, death, and torment on physical simulations of human beings, I don't think that has a good net effect on that society. If I stab someone, and they scream, that scream is an integral part of my emotional impetus to recognize that stabbing them hurt them and I shouldn't hurt them and I should feel bad.
If you are dulling your senses to the input of how humans convey suffering to each other on such a comprehensive and accurate level via such realistic simulations, I don't think that's good for you as a person and I don't think that's good for society as a whole.
I think it inevitably devalues human suffering in the mind of society.
I don't feel that you've adequately addressed the present reality of rape fetishism. There are people who legitimately enjoy forcing other people to have sex against their will, and there are also people who enjoy (somewhat paradoxically, I'll grant) being forced to do things that they do not consent to— that is to say, they get off on what is for all intents and purposes actual rape, not merely role play. That sounds really extreme, but it's not so far out there in kink circles. To my knowledge, the types of people who regularly indulge those fantasies are no more likely to commit, er, "real" law-enforcement-involving rape than your average frat guy.
Probably less.
Honestly? I hope you're right, and I'm wrong. I hope that people would never find enjoyment out of that accurate and realistic a simulation of those sorts of things. I hope that even a person who has rape fantasies would react to a creepily realistic "rape-bot" with the same level of revulsion as anyone else.
But... call my cynical, but I think you're giving people too much credit in the long run.
That's the question - why can't you dismiss it? Primetime entertainment for Americans in general is a cesspit of murder and sex already so what's one more vice to throw on the pile? By vice I mean simulated rape. Is it possible you don't dismiss the connection because rape repulses you like homosexuality repulses Christian fundamentalists and you're looking for reasons to justify your repulsion.
On the other hand (and this is the reasonable hand, mind you) I wouldn't let a pyromaniac play around with a book of matches even if he or she honestly didn't intend to burn any buildings down that day. Crazy people don't get fire or sex-bots for their own good.
I think I actually addressed that point quite directly, actually!
In the first post in this thread, no less.
They like the simulations, they aren't desiring the real experience. Yet, the more accurate and realistic the simulations become, I think the more callous people become to the difference between the two.
If we treat machines that look and act like us like sex slaves, target practice, torture subjects, and so on...
How long is it until we just don't care about that difference anymore?
I agree on an intelligence level, but I don't agree on a physical level.
I don't think we'll see "thinking robots" within our lifetime that have intelligence even approaching sapient.
But robots that can act like they are? Man, to some extent, we are already there.
That's what I'm saying— I think you're wrong about that.
That's my problem with giving "child-bots" to pedophiles. I feel that it doesn't help them actually really control or come to terms with those behaviors or feelings, it just gives them an "outlet" for them.
Would it keep them from molesting real children? Not necessarily. Would it only reinforce their bodies' feelings of pleasure and enjoyment from the acts and psychologically reinforce that enjoying it like they do is okay?
You betcha.
pfft. It would be immediately obvious to anyone that this is a robot, and not a real person, even if you're only using it for a preprogrammed sex routine. humans are amazingly sensitive to small variations in the human figure, which is part of the reason why it's so difficult to draw a human well.
Any studies showing this?
So then the problem is not the act which occurs, but the intention and understanding of the situation.
Robots cannot be raped given that robots have no volition.
Therefore, what is problematic in "raping a robot" is not the act of rape (since it is not rape) but rather the intention of the acting agent.
So, we're punishing / finding fault with intention. Right?
Again, the ultimate goal is not raping real children = good. If modern day giants of psychology agree that childlike sex-bots will curb the pedophile's lust, I won't say boo. If it works, then go ahead and do it no matter how gross it is. That's pragmatic!
EDIT: Wait, no, I take the pragmatic solution back. The easiest way to deter a pedophile is to forcibly castrate or kill him. That's cruel. Pragmatism sucks.
This was my first reaction as well, at least on an intellectual level. New media are bad, yadda yadda. On a more, like, instinctive level or something, I found the thought of rape-bots icky. And I think I actually agree, ultimately, with Pony's point .
There is also that thing where "porn addicts" (if porn is an addiction. I'm pretty sure it can be, like almost everything, e.g. working out) start with softcore porn and then need progressively more fucked-up stuff to get off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction
http://www.cracked.com/article_15725_the-10-steps-to-porn-addiction-where-are-you.html
I'm sure someone with better google-fu than me can find some sort of study on it, I'll admit these two articles are rather unconvincing.
EDIT: two articles by Johann Hari, my original source. He lists studies an such, but I can't find them because I suck.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200503070022
http://www.johannhari.com/2006/05/29/how-porn-has-transformed-teenage-life
The important part:
I re-read your post, and found I missed a key sentence in what you said, so sorry about that.
Addressing what you said... to be perfectly honest, I don't think having a psychological desire to be raped is really healthy and I don't think that having a robotic "outlet" for that issue is healthy either.
Likewise, when it comes to people who pretty much just want to rape folk... I don't think giving them robots to rape is good either.
Not exactly.
I've heard of studies that claim pedophiles almost always watch large amounts of child porn before actually doing anything to a real child.
I think there is a natural inclination to want more and increasingly naughty things as you become desensitized.
We're not "punishing" anything, or suggesting that it should be punished.
I am finding fault not even necessarily with the intent and motivation, but rather with the net effect.
If a person has a rape fetish and simulates rape with his sex-bot in the privacy of his own home and is otherwise a happy and well-adjusted person, I honestly do not care.
My problem is the idea that engaging in his simulation will damage his ability to empathize with others or recognize the real thing as an abominable crime.
Results.
The more the accuracy of the simulation the better it deals with the urges.
There is a distinction here that is important. If we are talking about people who do not have an aversion to the act in the first place(except that its illegal and they know its wrong). I.E. people with rape fantasies or pedophiles then there really is no issue with the application. Since these people would be able to use the simulation to reduce their urges in the same way that normal people have sex and reduce their urge to have sex or eat chocolate to reduce their urge to each chocolate. In the same way that diet soda is a better alternative for heavy soda drinkers than sugared soda, sexbots would be a better alternative for sexual deviants than actually doing the real thing.
The other side of this distinction is if we are talking about people who DO have an aversion to the act. If they are exposed to it that aversion can go away. This is the military effect we are talking about. People have an aversion to killing. Simulated killing reduces that aversion. The question then becomes more an issue of segregating the therapeutic uses with non-therapeutic uses, limiting accidental exposure and all the rest. Sorta like how we handle prescription drugs. Though another question that comes off of that is whether or not we can simply self regulate in buying these products. With the military, the desensitization is easy to get working, because its forced. But if its not forced can it really occur to the extent that we are proposing? Will the natural aversion to these horrible acts prevent people from simulating them?
A third aspect is hot cognition. There was a study done at MIT whereby males in the student body were asked to complete a questionnaire about sex. They completed the same questionnaire twice. Once when they were functioning normally and once when they were masturbating. Unsurprisingly the "yes" responses to the negative questions such as "would you ignore a woman who was saying 'no'?" or "could you find a 12 year old attractive?" all went up significant amounts.
Whether or not these types of simulated experiences have any effect on that type of change due to desensitization is another issue, and one that we probably won't be able to study due to ethical reasons(after all, we are positing that this can cause long term negative consequences for the participants). I have a feeling however, that they do not.
Certain groups feel very similarly about other things, be it damn them gays and their wanting marriage, or damn them furries and their wanting social acceptance, or damn them wife swappers and their violating their marriage vows, or damn them chronic masturbating hobos and their inability to do anything else.
Masturbation is a normal thing, more expensive props are just that. Heck lets make it more creepy with doll swapping parties, or hell AI sharing like we do music now. "Dude you really have to try Suzie127 for your sexbot, her reactions are the best" "Send me a copy, right now im enjoying AndrAIa 02 and man did they get the thigh control perfect".
People already group together to share common interests, even ones some of us find creepy.
You have a ton of qualifiers here. Some levels of desensitization are bad. What levels? How do we measure them? Sure shooting realistic representations of people MIGHT be bad for some people, heck it might be bad for soldiers. The training itself might cause mental problems to prepare them for a situation they might never face. Shooting taliban bot and watching his simuorgans spray over the wall might seriously damage a potential soldier whos career would have been no more eventful than sitting on base shuffling paper.
What about the people that killing the simulations would be good for? Some people really want to hoist the black flag and start slitting throats. Giving them an outlet would be good and healthy for them.
Empathy does not always stop people from dicking over their fellow humans, usually it is fear of getting caught or reprisal. Removing empathy from the equation does not remove the existing boundaries we operate in under our social contract. You can be X amount of an empathicless dick before we toss you in jail and forget about you.
No matter how realistic you are still dulling your senses on a machine, it will always remain a machine. You will know it is a machine. Now if you want to pose the argument that what if you are dropped into a holodeck without your knowledge and do not know it is a machine then yes it may affect you differently. At the end of the day how you knowingly act toward machines, and how you knowingly act toward people are different. If you cannot tell the difference then it is up to you to decide on which end of the spectrum to err.
Given the amount of human suffering in the world today we actively ignore, the value of suffering in society is already pretty low.
Would it be a good idea to give pedophiles simulated child pornography?
Like, drawn or CGI stuff?
If they had that, and because of that, didn't molest children would that be okay?
(I think it would be, so long as you can guarantee me it is making them less likely to abuse children, and not desensitizing them towards progressing further towards the real act, and good luck proving that point)
It's not finding fault with intention, I only really care about real harm.
If someone goes home and rapes their realistic sex bot every night they might just ignore a real woman's please for help if they walked right past one being attacked.
And there's a problem I have, right there.
I'm not even saying that a person who uses a rape-simulator-robot will be always desensitized to real rape or that they'd be more inclined to actually rape people (although it's certainly a very high risk, unacceptably high in my opinion).
What I am saying is, the less value people pay to the depiction of human suffering as it becomes more accurate and realistic, the more overall negative net effect this has on societal empathy and people's willingness to give a shit.
You keep saying that its going to desensitize them towards the real act. Yet you have no proof that they are sensitized towards the act. In fact, almost by definition, we are talking about people who already are. You're talking about pedophiles as if they don't want to fuck children. No, they do want to fuck children. They don't because they know either that its wrong or that they could get caught. Simulating the experience wont make them think its less wrong since that is formed from social norms and are constantly being reinforced. It only might if they are removed from society. But, if that is the case, then the question of simulation is irrelevant, they are going to be doing that in their heads anyway. The question of being caught, enforcement and all that, is entirely outside of the scope of our question and does not change.
Then of course we have the issue of substitution. And good luck proving that substitutions do not reduce the incident of their substitutes[because they do]
It seems like there's basically 2 negative side effects that you're worried about from this. 1 is that if you're using a sex-bot to simulate rape, then it might lead some people to start doing actual rape. the second is that that using a sex-bot at all is kind of creepy, and it can be damaging to a person's psyche and overall wellbeing, even if all they do with it is very standard sex.
I think the second point is a serious issue, and I think it's pretty obvious that this can also happen to people that watch too much porn or violent movies. Which isn't to say that those things should be illegal, or that they are bad at all in small doses, but people do need to be careful that they don't get addicted to those things. This is one of those things that we should probably talk to teenagers about in sex ed class, but of course that never happens because we're too busy trying to convince them to never have sex ever.
for the first danger, I do not think that there's any chance that this would cause people to start raping people in real life. I think that, for the foreseeable future, even the most advanced sex bot will be obviously nonhuman, so the realism of a rape simulation would be a lot less than just having a human partner who plays along in the fantasy with you. People are generally smart enough to distinguish fantasy from reality, and it's just as likely that this could give a would-be rapist an alternative outlet.
source: http://www.johannhari.com/2006/05/29/how-porn-has-transformed-teenage-life
reposted from my last post, think it got lost in static. There are actual studies in support of the OP's point, apparently.
That's interesting!
It's one of those things I thought was probably the case but didn't have much in the way of scientific backing.
yeah but that's just an argument against porn, in general.
There's also a 3rd negative side effect, which I touched on but didn't elaborate enough on, I feel: The net effect of a society where these sorts of behaviors against machines is more and more permissible is one that is going down a road where people are less sensitive towards these sorts of things happening to people.
This already happens, be it Kitty Genovese, or high school girls gang raped and no one does a thing. The question is not "Will sexbots make people care less about other people" but is "How fucked up are we already that we will stand by and watch horrible shit happen and do nothing to help."
I keep reading this over and over again and I can't quite get it. It sounds right on the surface but then I think of human suffering in general. You're saying if we don't pay 'proper' attention/respect to the victims of cruelty and the acts of suffering that create the victims, we grow numb to suffering in general. If we forget how terrible it was for the slaves, we'll have slavery again? If I don't watch Roots, I'm worse off for it because I'd be more prone to tolerate slavery? Roots was accurate. Amistad was realistic.
This means if I want to be sure that rape is bad, I should witness an accurate, realistic simulated rape and hear the stories of rape victims or else I won't broaden my horizons or, worse, I eventually won't give a shit about rape? That doesn't sound right at all.
EDIT: That's worded badly. Overexposure to rape makes us less sensitive to rape. But we still need exposure to rape to be respectful of rape, right? Can't we just say rape is bad with next to no exposure?
Obviously, it its kind of hard to conduct studies on the, as of yet, non-existent sex-bots. In my eyes, porn is probably the best substitute subject, especially seeing as how a lot of people in this thread are arguing that the sex-bots won't be bad because porn isn't.
Not that i'm against porn or anything, but I do think it has the potential to de-sensitize if used in an unhealthy or excessive way. Moderation and conscious behaviour! Blandness for the blandness god!
Oh yeah, I agree. But it seems like an obvious case where we should warn people about the danger, but not make it illegal.
Absolutely! I am not talking about making anything illegal here, at all. I am for the legalization of all victim-less crime, in fact (But which crimes are victimless? Well...). And combating stuff like this with information, treatment, counseling etc.
I agree with this; educate people to the risks, but don't ban something that could be used responsibly.
I'm someone who HAS a few fetishes that would be harmful if acted, but is repulsed by the idea of actually DOING them, and I really can't see this being any different from porn. In the end, the vast majority of people are going to be capable of making a disconnect between highly-realistic simulated rape and actual harming-a-person rape.
Same thing for people who are sexually attracted to children; I daresay the number of people with pedophiliac tendencies is much higher than the number who act on them, because most people have basic human decency and know it would be fucking wrong.
For a related anecdote, I remember back when that video of the guy being executed by terrorists went around; despite the high amount of highly-realistic violent content I'd seen in movies and games, it was a fucking horrifying thing to watch, and made me physically sick. There is a difference.