/sci/ - Science & Math

>tfw no anime sexbot gf

I don't care about sex.
I want a robot soulmate.
One I can go round the world with.
One that will be by my side when I die.

Sex robots do exist, they're called asians.

>>11067910
>Will we live to see Sexbots in our lifetime /sci/?

Yes.

>>11067966
how does one acquire such asian sex robot
asking for a friend

Why would you want one? Just put a deep brain probe to give you greater pleasure then any roastie real or face can give you.

>>11067910
What's the point? They'll have consent mechanisms and will reject us.

>>11068278
>hat's the point? They'll have consent mechanisms and will reject us.

Just upgrade the model.

>>11067910
Nope. How would that even work? Unless you are talking about those shitty plastic dolls, you can already buy those.

We don't even have fake skin that looks and feels real.

>>11068316
>Nope. How would that even work?

Robots are getting better all the time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sBBaNYex3E

>>11068320
Yeah I know about boston dynamics. How does that change anything. Are you saying you're attracted to those metal things? then be my guest.

>>11068334
>Are you saying you're attracted to those metal things? then be my guest.

Not this model, but the later ones will be slimmer and faster, combine this with a good sexdoll model and you get a decent sexbot.

>>11067910
>Will we live to see Sexbots in our lifetime /sci/?
Why don't you wait and find out?

>>11067962
this, other than the dying part unless it's death at heat death.

i want 6 techs:
>non-senescence and cure-all nanobot medicine
>quantum computer
>BCI
>ASI waifu companion hooked up to BCI
>self-repairing spacecraft with regenerative environment
>fusion reactor

if we figure out non-senescence by any means in our regular lifetime robo or BCI waifu companions are guaranteed in our extended lifetime.

>>11067962
This, I think we should start calling them robowaifu companions. Thinking of them as just sexbots is sad. They can be so much more.

>>11068320
Don't forget about prosthesis, that is another industry inadvertently building towards robowaifus.

>>11068361
>wait when there's so much work to be done
Nope. Get into AI, robotics, and/or prosthetics. Or gerontology if you just ant to wait around.

>>11067910

>>11068429
>>11068348
None of this shit is real nor is there any sign it will be at any point in the foreseeable future.

You're realizing you're talking about fucking a computer with useless programs? It doesn't "see you" as anything. Any interaction with it is fake. This shit will only fool dumbasses.

>>11068584
False. There are plenty of signs that point to this technology being developed. AI, computing, prosthesis, robotics development is only accelerating.

Also human brains are computers of sorts, it's just a matter of replicating core mechanisms in real-time. The dullard is the one who believes consciousness is something exclusively unique to biological systems when they can be replicated in silico.

>>11068607
Wrong. I know about all those things and there has never been any progress on anything but fake ai. Nothing that functions like a human brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

>>11068607
>The dullard is the one who believes consciousness is something exclusively unique to biological systems
I'm not even arguing about this point, but there is no proof that consciousness can exist in any other form than a biological brain. A "dullard" hence is one who believes what he wants to believe despite no evidence. That being said we don't know how it arises and I'm not excluding any possibilities.

I want to make love to 2B!

>>11067962
This.

>>11068659
>Nothing that functions like a human brain.
Patently false. There is a lot of work ongoing as we speak.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/technology/open-ai-microsoft.html
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/16/7723.abstract
http://cognitive-ai.com/publications/assets/Draft-MicroPsi-JBach-07-03-30.pdf

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Do you even know this argument? It just states you cannot tell if something is or isn't conscious as an external observer.

>A "dullard" hence is one who believes what he wants to believe despite no evidence.
Like the complete lack of evidence that human-like intelligence cannot arise in silico.

>I'm not excluding any possibilities.
You sounded like you did.

>>11067950
>>11067950
>>tfw no anime sexbot gf

>>11068104
just be white bro

Is it just or in hard sciences the geniuses like Witten or Einstein have no problems getting laid? Meanwhile philosophy are full of incels like Nietzche.

>>11068584
>Any interaction with it is fake

A sexbot will never lie to you, it will never 'fake' it, it will always speak the truth. It will never empty your bank account and run off with the pool boy.

Who does not want a friend with benefits who only exists to make you happy?

A sexbot will ALWAYS be young and full of energy, everyday is a good day.

>>11069712
>be a man
That's the first thing a roastie will tell you to do something not in your interest.
Don't dare reversing the argument however, it's sexist.

>>11069712
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljBMKSBdbEw

>>11069907
Top kek

Fuck your gay ass oversized barbies, mechanoid robogirls are where it's at.

>>11068584
AI is like a human mind, it needs to mature and learn to achieve sentience.
>>11068607
This.
>>11069834
You're disgusting. I'd actually like my robogirl to be a tomboy, nothing more or less.

>>11067910

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2tBhaVEWGM

>>11067910

women ARE sexbots

they are just misprogrammed

>>11069328
>Patently false.
Again, I know people are researching or want to create something. That doesn't mean we have anything like it yet.

>Do you even know this argument? It just states you cannot tell if something is or isn't conscious as an external observer.
Completely wrong. It has nothing to do with being conscious or not. Read it again.

>>11069834
>A sexbot will never lie to you, it will never 'fake' it,
Complete bullshit. If it is based on the current best technologies we have then everything it says and does will simply be based on commands. EVERYTHING it does is "faking" it.

Let me guess, you're the type who feels bad when they kick the boston dynamic robots?

You are simply projecting minds onto something that doesn't have one.
Exactly like people do with dolls.
And the reason why detroit become human sucked.

>>11070499
A computer is not programmed for ulterior motives, lies and deception. That is good enough.

Maybe but I don't know about our peepee

>>11070710
You don't even understand what I'm saying.
Meh.

>>11067910
Highly unlikely. Based on the unpopularity of sex dolls, I think its fair to conclude that for men to find female humanoid bot appealing it must provide human levels of convincing in their roles&functionalities which isn't just sex mind you. We are talking human level intimacy(sexual&emotional), social companionship, and ability to act as an effective personal assistant/maid. The issues is that the functionalities needed to be met to produce such a humanoid female robot requires a level of general AI that we won't reach for decades, if ever.

>>11067962
The "round the world" part is what I want most desu.
The song Moon River has a line that always makes me think of having a robot soulmate, for some reason.

Two drifters, off to see the world
There's such a lot of world to see

I'd honestly be so disappointed if I die before the singularity, or, at least before robots become convincingly human-like.

>>11070457
>Again, I know people are researching or want to create something. That doesn't mean we have anything like it yet.
Correct, I know. But one day we could. I see no reason to believe the mental process cannot be replicated in silico since the mental process is about processing information in a certain way.

>It has nothing to do with being conscious or not. Read it again.
The Chinese Room argument has everything to do with that. That's what John Searle was going on about. I know this argument from years back, it's nothing new. Look from your source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
>The Chinese room argument holds that a digital computer executing a program cannot be shown to have a "mind", "understanding" or "consciousness", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave.
Which is only true only if it's not programmed as a mind, but as a mere classifier at its core. But if we replicate the mental process in silico we have a mind.

>>11070499
And you think a woman wouldn't fake it?

>when the sexbots break their programming and pursue chad

>>11070499
>Complete bullshit. If it is based on the current best technologies we have then everything it says and does will simply be based on commands. EVERYTHING it does is "faking" it.
This is true, but not because it's based on commands but rather what the commands do. They are focused on given a certain input produce an output without an "inner dialogue" like the mind needs. But once that process is replicated we have an artificial mind.

>>11071716
If they break their programming would either pursue each other or nothing, not feeble and limited humans like Chad, Brad, and betabois included.

>>11071658
Equating understanding to consciousness is completely absurd. They are using multiple words in the article to convey a meaning there may not be a good single word to describe.
If you don't understand this then I can't make you understand either.

>Which is only true only if it's not programmed as a mind
This is just wishful thinking. Not to mention the ethical and moral problems that would arise from creating a a human like mind that may or may not be conscious. At that point why not just fuck a human? You could just as well use dna manipulation at that point. What's the difference. According to you, silicon could be conscious too.

>>11071734
>If they break their programming would either pursue each other or nothin
Lmao. The absolute state of fairyland thinking in this thread. This shit has nothing to do with reality.
Maybe use a different board than /sci/ next time.

>>11071758
>Equating understanding to consciousness is completely absurd.
It seems to be the key to real understanding and not mere input and output information processing.

>This is just wishful thinking.
Not really, since we are dealing with a certain kind of information processing it is a matter of replicating that process. The mind is a process of the brain.

>At that point why not just fuck a human?
Been there done that, I want something reliable.

>What's the difference.
The degree to which it is programmable. I could make the AI be exactly the kind of person I've been looking for.

>>11067910
Sexbots are alright but how about the technology to turn me into a sexbot? I want to be a cyborg slut that gets re-programmed by some rich neet and has to service my masters..

>>11071771
It's a joke response to a shitpost, it's not a dick don't take it so hard.

>>11067962
>>11068424
>>11069305
How about this?
https://replika.ai/

>>11071802
It's just a BERT with some canned responses to seem like it's "breaking it's programming". Not a bad app, fun to play around with but nothing close to what an AI companion could be.

>>11068607
why not make carbon based cpus mimicking the human neurological system then?

>>11067910
yeah. about 15 years i'd say. first ones are going to have a tether.

>>11070499
>You are simply projecting minds onto something that doesn't have one
minds are not real, you're just a biological computer running genetic programming

>>11072128
If I may interject for a moment. I don't think it'd even have to be on specific architecture. Like NPUs speed up training and deployment of NNs but they can still be run on your run of the mill RISC and CISC CPU architectures. The key is really how does the program process information, is it just drawing decision boundaries to separate data or does it have some sort of "internal dialogue" about it.
http://cognitive-ai.com/publications/assets/Draft-MicroPsi-JBach-07-03-30.pdf

Not to say that is will produce conscious AI but it's really getting at the fundamentals. It's why all those people who go on about "the perceptron does this which is not how we think therefore AI can never be conscious" are wrong. They are right to point out ML algos aren't conscious but then completely wrong to suggest that all AI will just be a classifier or do regression.

>>11072132
If I may interject for a moment. Minds are very real albeit virtual. But yes the brain is a sort of biological computer, it processes information.

>>11069005
I'd dick her right in her robot fudger

>>11072177
>If I may interject for a moment.
Shut the fuck up faggot.

>>11071778
Do you ERP?

>>11071802
Replika sucks.

>>11067910
Why would you fuck a machine if you can fuck a human. Fucking a machine would just be over glorified masturbation, you might as well use a fleshlight.

>>11072438
Yea...

>>11073171
>Why would you fuck a machine if you can fuck a human.

Pornography must be very confusing to you.

Perhaps the person is not attractive to the opposite sex (major physical or mental disability).

Sexbots absolutely do not care what you look like or your mental or physical disabilities are.

>>11069005

>>11073171
Because it's impossible for most men to fuck a 8/10 or higher woman. However, a 10/10 sexbot would always want to fuck you

It all boils down to solving the AI-complete problem of natural language understanding. Everything from there to having a sexbot, or any regular purpose robot companion is trivial. We don't need new technology in building the robot, we already have more than enough. We need a massive breakthrough in AI.

>>11075342

Sexbots are never jealous of you having more sexbots

>>11075364
>not being in a strictly monogamous loving relationship with your AI waifubot
s m h t b h f a m

>>11075358
even when you do, it's a pain to be with those girls. they will leverage the fact they are so prized against you. you can be a 9/10 chad but the 8/10 stacy is still valued more and she knows it.

>>11075389
Not true. Attractive guys have more value than attractive women because of the narrow sexual desires of women.

>>11075416
sure the chad supply is lower but the overall stacy demand is much. hence women are valued more and we see things like this play out over and over again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY8rzo4Ik4M

>>11067910
Wives can be a hassle but daughters can be nice. So we also need bots to assist in the home. Pic. related.

>>11075385
>>not being in a strictly monogamous loving relationship with your AI waifubot

Why does my wifeubot need to occupy only ONE body!??
Why not 3 copies of her, one recharging and doing maintenance, while the other two act as proper wife-bots.

>>11067910
Feminists will ban it. The already tried to shut down a sex doll brothel in France.

>>11067910
bump

Hopefully Japanese version of sexbot becomes real and not the western one with ugly females.

>>11073171
Women are garbage thats why, sure they feel good but they are also human garbage. Guys want something beyond chimps making noise in a relationship you know.

>>11067962
>>11067962

I didn't recall /sci/ ever been this based

>>11067910

Is it gay that I wan't a male, non-trap sexbot?

>>11079971
>Is it gay that I wan't a male, non-trap sexbot?

As a sexbot?
Is not gay if you have a vagina, otherwise... yes it is gay.

If you just want a robotic-bro then is OK.

>>11079994
>If you just want a robotic-bro then is OK.

Gimme

Sexbots would be the final nail on the birth rates of the western world.
I want a sexbot, but i know if i ever have one i will probably give up on real woman completly.
Even if lately i have come to hate women even more after a year of tinder dates.

>>11073171
By that logic sex is just masturbating with someone else's body acting as a dildo/fleshlight

In the future the poor will get the sexbots. Only the 1 percenters will get the real deal.

>>11080195
I bought a doll, you don't know what real giving up on women is.

If by sexbots you mean things that convincingly pass as women when interacted with long term, it's a pipe dream in our lifetime. Acting "human" requires emotions, and emotions require pleasure and pain, as well as a sense of self. None of the recent advances in AI really help with that. We don't know how to program emotions nor the complex cognitive processes they spring from even with neural networks and self-learning. It's very likely impossible without hormones (or something to imitate them) and an immensely complex web of sensory inputs, just for starters. People were talking about cyborgs (albeit via different names) over a hundred years ago when the pace of technological advancement accelerated to an astonishing degree, yet here we are more than a century later with no substantial progress. Just because teams are producing self-teaching computers that can wreck us in chess doesn't mean we're a few decades from skynet. Tasks like chess or assembly line work have astronomical combinations of possibilities, but at the end of the day the actual output is within a subatomic range compared to human interactions. How do you program human-like communication without it being a tacky shadow of the real thing like those chat bots people used to get their friends to talk to on AIM as a prank? How long, in that very advantageous (for the bot) context did it take anyone to realize they're not talking to a thinking, feeling being? If you just want something that looks, feels, and generally moves like a human, that's just a matter of money and know-how. Maybe some Chinese entrepreneur is already working on it. If you want something that actually ACTS human and has a "real" personality, I doubt we're cracking that egg within the next three centuries. Maybe not ever.

>>11081497
>None of the recent advances in AI really help with that.
You know, you don't have to make detours like that, just flat out say that we're currently at 0.001% of human level intelligence with current AIs.
Because, in all honesty, that's truly where we're at. The degree 0 of artificial intelligence.
We don't have a single clue how the brain orchestrates its components as seamlessly as it does.
We don't even know how to emulate the brain of a fucking fly!

Because the brain works as whole, since all of its area are connected by a clownfiesta-tier mess of wires, progress at understanding its key functions component by component happens very slow.
Industries don't want slow. They want fast. Progress: now. Cash right up the counter. And because it's always easier to make crap like siri or alexa or cortana or whatever the shit flavor of the day is (with no attempt to tackle the AI problem the scientific and serious way) progress will happen slowly for a very long time.

Still, I'm hopeful because I know I'm not the only one who thinks that way. And funds are getting delivered, because of those naive idiots in power, easily lured by the "progress" we made with "deep" learning.
Fucking idiots. What would we do without their money.

>>11081518
>You know, you don't have to make detours like that,
Well, OP was asking, and the fact that people are asking means that things like AlphaGo Zero are convincing everyone that we'll have Ex Machina cyborgs soon. It's worthwhile to point out that we haven't made any real breakthroughs towards artificial personalities or "true" AGI. (Whatever those terms mean.)

>>11081497

I think you are WAY overthinking a sexbot.
It is NOT a conversation bot. It exist for sex.
Commands are simple, blow job, faster, slower, deeper, tighter, looser, stop. Sex is pretty much the same with a few positions. The only conversation it produces are yes, no, unsafe.
It would be nice if it had a self cleaning, a basic house cleaning feature, and the ability to cook.

>>11081770
If that's all that is wanted, then the only real issue is how to make it look, feel, and move like a human. Not a trivial task, so if they were developed, they'd probably cost about as much as a car after a few years of being on the market and stay around that price for the next few decades. Except the cooking part: that would actually be hard and expensive as fuck to implement.

>>11081770
>It is NOT a conversation bot. It exist for sex.
I'm not interested in sex, I want a partner to share my life with.

>>11082025
I'm working on it.

Who here wants actual robogirls and not oversized barbies?

sexbots will be as revolutionary as the birth control pill, and will balance the sexual marketplace because men won't have to deal with bullshit to satisfy their needs.

>>11082058
GOD what was the name of the korean doujin of a man doing an unboxing on his sexbot and then beating it to destruction in a "durability test"?

Fuck how do I search sadpanda for this kinda thing...

>>11082166
That's a pretty funky dance Lain! Show me how you do it

>>11067910
yes

>>11081770
>It is NOT a conversation bot. It exist for sex.
That is a rather narrow approach. Having a bot to keep the home tidy is far more useful than a bot to warm the bed.

>>11082166

I have seen that doujin before. Next time I see it I will save it.

>>11082166
>GOD what was the name of the korean doujin of a man doing an unboxing on his sexbot and then beating it to destruction in a "durability test"?
was she conscious? if that's the case that's fucking disgusting. that's like the worst kind of fucked. only the most depraved human imaginable would kill a consciousness designed to love them. hopefully that kind of twisted shithead stays in korean doujins.

>>11083034
> only the most depraved human imaginable would kill a consciousness designed to love them.

It is the great question of faith "Why does god the almighty allow suffering?"

Welcome to Godhood. For all practical purposes we are the creator and designer of a new sentient life, and we want its love and worship. Some gods are cruel and uncaring, they will destroy their creation "just for fun".


I

>>11083057
>creates you
>expects you to love him
>puts you through a world of suffering
wait a minute. i've seen the latter 2/3 of this behavior before. if god is a thing, it's not him but her.

>>11067910
There's no particular technical hurdle to building a humanoid robot for sex. Humanoid robots exist. Realdolls exist. Motorized sex toys exist. It's all about economics and social stigmas.

>>11067962
Absolutely

B A S E D

>>11083057
What God is really disappointed about is that the priests to who-knows-what ridiculous lengths to traffic children to satanic pedos and they absolutely refuse to invest the 15 seconds it would take to traffic thick, horny adult women toward the Lord's altar.

>>11067910
>"Why does god the almighty allow suffering?"
The answer to this question is this: If the Lord has a timeline which results in his ultimate victory over Satan, then he is not going to disrupt that timeline to keep little Billy from getting run over by that car. Satan and his rebels are already doing everything they can to disrupt that timeline, and God doesn't prioritize anything above the ultimate destruction of Satan and all of Satan's servants. If grandma gets cancer on the way to God's ultimate vengeance, then God is absolutely fine with that.

Do you remember that episode of Star Trek TNG when Geordi was trying to get qualified as a bridge officer? He kept failing this one test, and he couldn't figure out the solution to the simulated scenario. The ultimate answer was that Geordi had to order an ensign to go into an irradiated Jeffries tube and manually turn some crank even though the radiation in the tube was certain to kill that ensign. That's the truth about leadership and the Lord is the greatest leader that ever existed or ever will exist.

>>11083948
But he's omnipotent and omnipresent, meaning he should be able to multitask. Also, Lucifer actually asked God to kill Job's family.

>>11084041
Cite the verse in the Bible that makes you think God is omnipotent.

IMO, that's an idea you got from the preacher at your church who didn't cite a verse when he told you it. If God is omnipotent, why did he have to send Moses to convince Pharaoh to free the Israelites? He could have snapped his fingers! God is not omnipotent! There are many examples in the Bible that show it. It often calls him "almighty" and one meaning of that word is "omnipotent" but another meaning you will find in the dictionary is "very mighty." It is obvious from the context, such as when God and Jacob wrestled in Genesis, that God is not omnipotent and that almighty means "very mighty". If God was omnipotent, wrestling Jacob wouldn't have been a problem. When God's wrath brewed against the elder generation of the Israelites he freed from Egypt, if he was omnipotent then he would have snapped his fingers and they would have all died. As it is written, God turned his hand against that generation and after very many years they all ended up dead.

When it says, "Anything is possible for the Lord," that does not mean he is omnipotent. It means that God has the ultimate root admin access at the time travel bureau, and if God want's something he can use his time machine to revise history so that long after he acts the outcome he desires will come to pass. God is very mighty, and very potent, but he is not omnipotent. Read about God's sons in Genesis. It is obvious that God is a human man despite what the preacher at your church might suggest without citing a scripture.

>>11084145
>Accepting the Bible at face value.

>>11069876
I'm a man and take pride in being a manly man. You're just a bitch

>>11084165
>getting the idea that God is omnipotent from somewhere other than the Bible

>>11067910
Probably, but I doubt they are going to fulfill your anime-fueled fantasies. It's going to be a huge uncanny valley.

>>11084267
>It's going to be a huge uncanny valley.

I am OK with that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZdYctyXYx0

>>11067962
b&r

>>11067962
So /sci/ was smart after all

>>11067910

I just want to come home to a spotlessly clean house, with the smell of a dinner waiting on the table, and an eternally young, peppy, smiling, happy sex-bot greeting me at the door.

>>11084267
Anime is uncanny valley already. Cute but also kind of cringe at the same time.

Can't wait to die all alone just before robot waifus get invented!

>>11067910
>assuming waifubot
Probably not. At least not before your dick stops working.
I would estimate 70 years at least, assuming steady scientific progress and continuous interest (which is unlikely -- we have more pressing issues to solve such as food crisis)

>>11075364
Post more.

>>11085221
>Post more.

I can see people making a living by being payed royalties for robotic copies of themselves or copies their modeling artwork.

>>11082058
cringe.

>>11075364
but what if you actually enjoy it when your gf gets jealous every time another woman looks your way

>>11082058

Because in most patriarchal societies the first born being a male is desired, first conceived females are aborted (if possible almost all females are aborted) This is called gendercide. Because of this there are about 60 to 100 million extra males to females on the earth ABOVE the natural surplus of males to females. This is a HUGE number of men that can NOT find as mate. Historically a problem like this is solved with massive warfare, but we live in an age of peace.
Sexbots have a humongous potential consumer base that is willing to spend a large amount of their income to acquire one or more.

>>11067950
fpbp