/jp/ - Otaku Culture

they would be 3D, but feminism has ruined any chance of sexbots

3D but not PD

>>9833877
But isn't 3D PD?

>>9833884
If 3D was PD by definition, adding PD would be redundant. All women are 3DPD, but there are 3D beings that are fine. Cats for example.

>>9833875
I really doubt feminism could do anything, you already have high-quality realistic fuck dolls available on the market for those with enough disposable income. Once AI tech reaches the necessary level someone is bound to put 2 and 2 together.

>>9833925
AI protection laws or something then. It's illegal to fuck animals today. It will be illegal to fuck non-consenting robots.

>>9833925
>I really doubt feminism could do anything
it's already happening

>>9833951
what if I program it to concent?

I've given up and put my hopes in holographic ai girls. No need for a physical body.

>>9833993
that's not gonna fly with the feminists
they think having sex with a drunk woman is rape

There will be a separate class of robots. There will be those that serve as workers, they would be incapable of surviving on their own and their capabilities are limited. You could purpose one as a sex partner just as you could purpose it a construction worker.
Meanwhile there will be a separate class of robot with intelligence equivilant to human and they are to be treated as human.
This creates multiple problems however, such as how could you ensure their votes in government are unbiased. Perhaps limit the production of these higher robots, only giving them to those deemed necessary where a lower robot would not suffice.

I question the prevalence of these higher robots, as a lower robot with the skills you want (sex, housework, emotion) would seem good enough.

>>9834020
there are several ethical problems concerning the creation of human like robots, and by that I mean robots who are self-aware and sentient.

By that point humanity will have to deal with some fundamental questions and that might take a lot before a settlement will be made. Before that creating such robots will be seen the same as cloning humans. At least logically it should be, but religious fucktards will probably deny the idea that a machine can become "human".

At any rate non sentient robots are what humanity actually needs. Sentient robots would become competitors rather than servants.

>>9833925
>I really doubt feminism could do anything
Never, ever, underestimate the powerfag of feminism, just look at the current world if you seek proof.

The very fact that you're willing to make love with a robot and not a woman will annoy them, and we all already know what happens when a feminist is annoyed : She's annoying everyone.

I bet they'll ask to incorporate some woman-rights-protection-protocol on each female robots being created.

>>9834065
feminists also want to ban porn alltogether.
But they aren't very succesful at that.
I say that the same thing would happen with sex robots, they'll make a fuss and protest but nobody will give a fuck.

>>9834036
Cloning of humans (I suspect you are meaning the transplantation and not manufacturing) only issue is whether someone does in fact own their DNA. But I doubt it would denied that they are humans.

Manufactured humans does create a problem but I would believe that human level robots would occur before the ability to create fully incapable humans that can then be made alive. As if you can do the later, there is no need for the robot version.

>>9834070
Have no fear, just because the vast majority of people believe in something does not prevent the minority from getting their way.

>>9834070
I hope I had your optimism... They even banned some cultural words from our vocabulary here, so I wouldn't put anything by the likes of them.

>>9834070
>But they aren't very succesful at that.
brb, buying Rapelay from amazon.com

>>9834036
>non sentient robots are what humanity actually needs

I doubt we will have much choice in the matter when it comes to really fucking smart AI. We won't be able to actually design it; our best bet would be to define a vague set of criteria and use really big computers to forcefully evolve the thing until it fits the criteria.

We will have very little understanding of the system we will end up creating.

>>9834116
I don't think creating sentient robot is a matter of "intelligence". Creating an intelligent machine is easy, we have already created programs that can be humans in several fields, it's only a matter of time before they'll beat us in everything.

Creating self-awareness and emotions on the other hand, now that's a whole different level of complexity.
How do you even program an AI to "feel" emotional pain? And I mean actually feeling it, not just simulating it.

>>9834145
You could equip it with actual nerves (organic or artificial) and hook them all up to a central nervous system? Of course, even then, you'd arguably just be "simulating" pain, but how humans interpret pain isn't particularly different.

>>9834110
That game was like years outdated. It's like banning Mortal Combat 3 from amazon.

>>9834065
If we can make waifu bots, there wouldn't be a need to ever listen to anything a woman said anymore. Feminists would try but they would become increasingly irrelevant.

>>9834159
"emotional pain". Nerves wouldn't be of any use with that.

The problem is that up until now all that the AI do is to "fool humans" so to look like them, but they actually aren't.
For example a chatbot can be programmed to give the impression that he is angry, sad or happy, the program doesn't actually work to make the chatbot itself feel that way.

>>9834190
If you can simulate something adequately there's no difference between actually experiencing it. Crying when they've been hurt feelinged is the same whether it's a routine or they actually "feel sad"

>>9834190
Seems I accidentally a word.

You could go so far as to make a 1:1 mapping of the chemicals/processes in the brain that cause emotions?

>>9834145
>Creating an intelligent machine is easy

Nothing we have today is even close to being intelligent. Chat bots are basically parrots. Siri is a search engine which mimics human language. No one today is anywhere close to developing system capable of Natural Language Understanding, with context and everything.

>How do you even program an AI to "feel" emotional pain?
You don't. You let evolution do it for you. Create a virtual environment where it is beneficial for entities to work together. Sooner or later a few of them will randomly develop primitive versions of compassion, empathy and sense of loss. These traits will help them to survive and pass their genetic information with these primitive emotions to the next generation. Billions of generations may very well have something resembling human emotions.

>>9834251
>Billions of generations later

>>9834233
Really? That's like saying that if I fake I'm sad there's no difference from when I actually feel sad.
A machine should be able to do the same thing that a human does before you can call it "human". If a human can act in an absolute conving way that he's happy while being actually extremely sad, a machine should be able to do the same.

>>9834238
That's the easiest way. Technically you could make a perfect reproduction of the brain, it's still almost impossible to do with our current technology but technically I guess you could, and then it should work. But that would mean emulating something you don't really understand. I think a more rewarding goal would be to create a perfect human being entirely in digital format.

Have you faggots not seen the Matrix?

>>9834258
>Billions of generations later

That wouldn't take all that long in a simulated computer environment. Remember, the whole point of computing isn't just to automate things, but to do it much faster than humans can.

But yeah, we're years and years and years away from natural language processing and synthesis, let alone seriously advanced AIs that trump any human ingenuity. The singularity is a nice idea, but we're probably a century or so too early in our predictions.

>>9833951
That's because animals are living creatures. Robots are not.

>>9834275
Are you implying that that clusterfuck of plot holes and bulls has even a shadow of scientific credibility?

>>9834299
I seriously doubt it would work that neatly. In the first place creating a perfect evolutionary system isn't an easy feat.

Unless you are a creationist retard, you should know that evolution isn't really just stuff that happens at random.

>>9834268
>entirely in digital format

Just because it is in a digital format doesn't mean that we will be able to understand how it works. Even today we can create artificial neural networks, train them to perform a relatively simple task and then have no clue whatsoever how they actually do it.

>>9834268
>That's like saying that if I fake I'm sad there's no difference from when I actually feel sad.
The point of that is that, from an outside point of view, there is no difference if you're doing it correctly.

>>9834330
forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think a neural networks doesn't qualify as "digital".

>>9833955
get out of here pol we are discussing kawaii sex robot

>>9834342
Outside point of view do not matter.

When people will be discussing whether a robot should be considered "human" and being given human rights, an important point would be ascertain if that robot actually is actually self-aware and capable of emotion or if it is just a well programmed machine that can give the illusion to have all that.

In the latter case I'm 99% sure it will just be considered a machine, no matter how much convincing it is.

>>9834302
When AI is butt fucking you with robotic tentacles and placing your mind into some shitty computer generated reality so they can use you as a battery and control you, don't come crying..

>>9834365
well, that's not going to happen, because the whole idea of using humans as batteries is retarded.

Emotion is not a condition for human consideration. You do not measure to a flaw.

>>9834368
Nuh-uh it says right here that you're lying and that you're fucking gay.

>>9834368
The whole idea was to actually use human brains as a storage/processing unit.

Of course, the directors thought that this would be too complicated for the general masses to comprehend and decided to go for the retarded "battery" explanation

Is this thread still alive?

>>9834190
Computer science PhD here :
set value emotional_pain = true