Page 5 of 5

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:13 pm
by deadpringle
AlexKnight wrote:In the end, it's the humans that designed the computer who created the problems. Vulnerabilities exist because humans missed something.
A computer can't patch a vulnerability on its own, it still needs a human to do the work.
Actually, it can. :) It's called "metaprogramming". A program could be created to look for area of vulnerability, however, the programming which looks for said vulnerabilities is subject to human error as well.
AlexKnight wrote:Also, a computer doesn't do things it isn't programmed to do, not unless true AI has developed without me knowing it.
So far, we only have VI's (virtual intelligence), even though we call it AI.

As soon as a computer becomes self aware, we're in trouble.
I don't believe machines will ever truly be self-aware. I think we will be able to mimic this behavior, however, consider what would need to be done to build a machine that questions why it exists - what would need to be done to make a machine that reflects on its own actions. Exactly which emotions trigger?

We as human beings have no control over what emotions are triggered by certain events. For example, if someone did something terrible to someone you care about, you cannot choose to feel good about it, and to be happy for the person who committed the act. You could try to pretend to be happy about it, and try to smile about it, but in such a case, you are making a choice - just as a machine would. Obviously, it would be the wrong choice, but I think my point stands.

Programs behave based on logical choices which are legal in their instruction set, or on randomization via a generated or input seed value. There is no spontaneous reaction in machines. The closest thing to "spontaneous" would be "randomization", which is very different.

People like Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku are bringing this kind of nonsense up in order to try to remain relevant in a world of science and technology which has left them behind. Don't believe the panicked hype. It's just silly.

I've been a computer geek since I was 7 years of age. I've built and repaired countless computer systems - some off the shelf, some proprietary. I've written several programs for my own use. I've used so many different software packages for so many highly varied purposes that I've lost count. I know computers, and electronics. I know operating systems on levels most would never care to. I don't believe true sentience in machines will ever be a reality. I believe it will always be a form of mimicry.
Xephyr wrote:When we reach that point that we can build a computer that can think for itself and do as it wishes, we would have created the beginning of our extinction. Just like there are good and bad people, there can become good and bad robots. Even then so, we as humans will need a way to terminate these robots, via some means they will never know about. If done any other way to prevent mankind from being overtaken, robots will realize that if you try to harm it by disabling it because it "bugged out" or "misbehaved", it will fight you to save its life.
Before that's possible, the machine will need to have a will to survive. In order to have a will to survive, the machine will have to fear death. Exactly how would a machine have a fearful reaction without being told when to do so? Emotions are triggered by what we have learned. The key word here is TRIGGERED, not CHOSEN. Exactly how does a programmer go about writing software where emotion will accurately trigger based on an perceived event? Through a series of boolean-like statements? Case statements? All of it would still be mimicry and choices, not emotion. Emotions are not a choice. A lot of this speculation about truly sentient machines is futurist fantasy. It's a pleasant fantasy, but still a fantasy.

The only way that machines will have the tiniest slightest chance at true sentience is when we can replicate the human brain, in its entirety - all of its functions - all of its characteristics, all of its storage capacity - with synthetic materials. This is thousands of years away - at a time when atomic construction has long since replaced traditional manufacturing, and it is an everyday boring thing. True machine sentience would have to result from a spontaneous function of nature, and said function would have to allow nature to directly interact with the machine. This is something over which we have ZERO control.

The pathway we are more likely to take is to incorporate intelligent machines into our own genetic makeup, where the human and the fabricated being become one, and nature eventually finds a way to incorporate the two into its complicated matrix at the atomic level. Powerful cyborgs, complemented by intelligent robots - very very sexy intelligent robots. :D

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 11:32 pm
by katiesBoyfriend
deadpringle wrote:
<snip>

Before that's possible, the machine will need to have a will to survive. In order to have a will to survive, the machine will have to fear death. Exactly how would a machine have a fearful reaction without being told when to do so? Emotions are triggered by what we have learned. The key word here is TRIGGERED, not CHOSEN. Exactly how does a programmer go about writing software where emotion will accurately trigger based on an perceived event? Through a series of boolean-like statements? Case statements? All of it would still be mimicry and choices, not emotion. Emotions are not a choice. A lot of this speculation about truly sentient machines is futurist fantasy. It's a pleasant fantasy, but still a fantasy.

The only way that machines will have the tiniest slightest chance at true sentience is when we can replicate the human brain, in its entirety - all of its functions - all of its characteristics, all of its storage capacity - with synthetic materials. This is thousands of years away - at a time when atomic construction has long since replaced traditional manufacturing, and it is an everyday boring thing. True machine sentience would have to result from a spontaneous function of nature, and said function would have to allow nature to directly interact with the machine. This is something over which we have ZERO control.

The pathway we are more likely to take is to incorporate intelligent machines into our own genetic makeup, where the human and the fabricated being become one, and nature eventually finds a way to incorporate the two into its complicated matrix at the atomic level. Powerful cyborgs, complemented by intelligent robots - very very sexy intelligent robots. :D
In addition, computers will need the ability to reproduce and create new machines rather than simply continuing to repair themselves. Components, and even entire systems, will eventually fail due to random events, such as accidents, or end of lifetime wear. As well, they will need to successfully adapt to new environments by either changing their programs or rebuilding themselves.

Once they can do that, we may have some competition.

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:24 pm
by Xephyr
I just want to be alive during period where robots can have and enjoy sex with humans. Passionately and Lustfully. Is that too much to ask for? :razz:

I mean, it's one statement:

Code: Select all

BOOL is_horny = TRUE;
Make it hap'n!

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:56 pm
by deadpringle
Xephyr wrote:I just want to be alive during period where robots can have and enjoy sex with humans. Passionately and Lustfully. Is that too much to ask for? :razz:

I mean, it's one statement:

Code: Select all

BOOL is_horny = TRUE;
Make it hap'n!
I said it would be mimicry. I didn't say it wouldn't be hot! :D

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:02 pm
by alibad
Tybalt wrote:Talk dirty to me, scarlet johanson!
Anytime!

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:40 am
by ErrorNull
Hot and Scarlett Johansson are all I ask in a robot. Yes I will have many sex with it.

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:41 am
by Darkangel65
He'll yeah...that be fun....so long has it is not Robby the robot
Dark

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:30 am
by Agalmatoreveur
Computers already have a start behaving like girlfriends - Often, when they're behaving oddly, and you ask what's wrong, they say "nothing" :D.

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 3:22 am
by ChikkinNoodul
This video is related: Sex robots in science fiction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQrtLdS ... My&index=6
Also, the entire playlist is quite interesting.

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:10 pm
by james1969
Agalmatoreveur wrote:Computers already have a start behaving like girlfriends - Often, when they're behaving oddly, and you ask what's wrong, they say "nothing" :D.
So long as she doesnt get a virus! :D

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:29 am
by puma uma
Hell yea enough questions.

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:29 am
by ChikkinNoodul
Maybe we're thinking about AI the wrong way. What if instead of creating it all in software on a hardware platform that is more or less equivalent to a deterministic turing machine, we used something like FPGAs, to create something where there is no boundary between hardware and software?
In human beings, that boundary also doesn't exist. The idea that body and mind are different, separate things, is complete and utter nonsense, so if we want to build an artificial mind, we might need to give up on the idea that a mind can be created as a piece of software running on some common computer architecture. The architecture of a machine mind might be more analogue than digital.
Also I don't know why such an artificial mind shouldn't be completely self-aware, and why it shouldn't have emotions and act in a non-deterministic fashion.

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 6:17 am
by RainLover
In my opinion, as long as a robot is programmed to be subservient to its human owner and obeys all commands and not spy on its owner and report back to the powers that be, there won't be a problem. It's a case of Actroid versus Boston Dynamics. Too many people nuke their ethical compass when they sign employment contracts. If someone thinks they've figured out how to build Skynet, they will do it, just to prove they can, and cash in on the uptick in their stock price. No values at all.

I think it will take the open source community to eventually come up with the programming that makes AI worthy from a consumer standpoint, because there will be third-party verification that the codebase doesn't have back doors or spyware or hidden routines to murder its owner in their sleep. Terminator becomes The Manchurian Candidate. Too many people are only too happy to turn everything into a weapon or a tool of surveillance, censorship or suppression.

A robot must demonstrate unswerving loyalty to its owner. It's one thing for people to continue to share their most intimate secrets over phones that are easily spied on because there is a disconnect between the technology and the third-party action at a distance, like recording conversations and analyzing the contents for keywords. Once we put a human face on that same interaction, then people will suddenly see the trust issue for what it is because a robot will be relatable in a way that a smartphone isn't, even with Cortana or Siri.

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 7:59 am
by Dollfriend
This is where everything is moving to, Technology, newer realistic feeling materials, TPE/ newer silicon / and who knows what will be created in the future, combine all this with the beautiful sculptures that man creates, and Yes the sex robot, will be a thing of reality, who would not want a Sex Doll Robot that could respond to your comments, actions and movements....The answer for me is a Resounding YES.......... :painting:

Re: Would you have sex with a robot?

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 10:13 am
by Lahfan1970
"I find your slack-jawed stare very attractive, PHILIP J. FRY."

...but still yes.