Ethics: Robots and AI

Post Reply New Topic

From my reading of history, it seems there have always been people who would f**k a snake if they could hold it still, and I see no reason to expect that they will ever cease to exist. So, I don't know how any new way to use tech for sex will die out. I consider it plausible that a few erotic daguerrotypes are still produced each year.

Society will not be satisfied with prosecuting people who create images using sex robots; they will not tolerate people doing creepy things at all. The very existence of realistic child sex robots will fill enough people with murderous rage that a moral panic seems inevitable.

I keep contrasting the sex robots with the combat robots because I find society's views of those interesting to contrast with each other. For example, Robot Wars will eventually have semi-autonomous robots unless the rules prohibit it. When will people start to worry about creating AI with no purpose but to destroy each other? I think it will be later than for the sex robots, because moral panics rarely arise against non-sexual violence.

sex robots are merely a logical progression from sex dolls, they will eventually happen if mankind doesn't blow it all up first.

Lol, couldn't help but think of the detective from Deuce Bigalow - it's *thin* dick!


I'm not sure about something in here. You seem to be drawing a correlation that sexuality is debased without a partner? I won't go farther down that track because I'd rather not put words in your mouth or run a paragraph on my impressions.



Unless we're talking about the bible belt and some Dominionist areas of the US I'm not sure that this would occur simply because people were creating male and female sex-bots, even if they started getting into fantasy races. I'm sure we'll also have internet virtual reality sex going on with mechanical proxy - they can talk about that one too. The child-sex robot would probably be the most likely to trigger the kind of response you're talking about, I really don't think the rest would (or at least the types of people who'd be morally outraged would most likely be some combination of the Grundy's and the particular kinds of women who are horrified that they've lost sex as a lever of control over men).


I think that's a far worse problem. If someone decided to make autonomous drones and one of those drones malfunctions I think we'd have an obligation to send the programmer to prison at minimum for manslaughter and they'd have a few choices - either a) really make sure these things can't be hacked and make sure malfunctions completely shut off weaponized systems or b) leave weaponized drone creation to people who are willing to take such risks of imprisonment if their device malfunctions or gets hacked in a manner that can't be traced back to the hacker. We're deeply screwed though if we start abandoning accountability to devices.

I didn't mean to imply a value judgement about sex without a partner. I don't have a partner, and I still enjoy sex by my own self. I get that saying that invites mockery, mostly from liars.

I'll stipulate that some women will oppose sex robots of any kind for the same reasons they oppose prostitution, but I won't characterize those reasons. As to other opposition, there are the people who don't want anyone to ever have sex outside their rules; human creativity means they always have something to shout about. Some liberals will, I guarantee you, take the position that all sex with robots is rape, for reasons which will be obvious to them. I guess the response will combine moral disgust with concern for abusing AI in some proportion, and the intensity will depend on the mood of society when the story becomes big news for whatever reason. There may be some practical concerns about preventing crimes against humans thrown in there.

I have worried about rogue autonomous military drones, but hadn't thought about hobbyists. It doesn't seem like a statistically significant concern to me at first glance, but who knows?

This prompted another question: When will the Institutional Review Boards who examine and approve the ethics of all academic experiments include standards for experimenting on AI and robots, and what will those standards look like?

In some cases I am comfortable in characterizing that - they'd much rather control men than put in their hard work at relationships or being the kind of partner a decent guy would actually want to be with. Relying on some combination of hormonal backup and bad judgement on the guy's part requires no extra effort.

There might be some fair arguments to be made about dropping birthrates in countries and that legal prostitution could have a pernicious effect on the number of people parenting but I'm not 100% sold that it would be a death blow to civilization and like most things it would likely be a momentary blip. On the other hand I actually think it would help reduce a lot of violent crime triggered by status needs in men from neighborhoods where economic status isn't an available option.


When I said 'someone' I actually meant it in the grand sense to include agencies, large corporations, and the people in them.

I really believe in such a case where a military drone made by a particular company, just to pull a familiar name Lockheed Martin, makes a drone that malfunctions to the point of killing people who aren't very specifically chosen and agreed on by international law as to be eradicated the two choices would be a) pierce the corporate veil and put the person who was in charge of designing the particular programing logic that failed in prison, b) if that person's programming failed because of someone else's downstream changes that person would go to jail c) if it couldn't be demonstrated who actually caused the programming failure the whole team in charge of that part of the programming circuit goes to jail.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 28 Jan 2017, 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

It would be nice if something could change the way we prosecute corporate crime. People have died from it before, lots of times, and the officers rarely go to jail. Maybe if a drone wrongly kills a little blonde girl?

You need to read up on the US drone program. There's no international law, no US law, no court. Also, any male over 18 who gets killed in a drone strike is by definition a combatant. The drones evidently don't wrongly kill anyone who matters, and that way of dividing people up disgusts me.

If you're talking about the human-controlled drone program being used in the Middle East and Asia right now by the US government I don't think it can be reduced to sheer lawlessness in such a simple manner as you've stated above:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/legality-ta ... tional-law

and now, mazterbate onself into the new comatoze species of subordered
nothing left to be desired after overconsuming into the abyssal hole

free drones now, (but nothing's for free, you'll pay anyway)
subscribe
and pay forever


pardon my french, what says nestlé (in this together with the other cosmetic nazis);
privatise water
and AI will decide who needs it, in a near future?
sugarmountain again?

Oversimplification or fundamentally incorrect?

What i mean is we'd be having a discussion about several different things. A few examples:

- International law regarding non-governmental combatants.
- Legal definition of shell-states vs. sovereign states.
- The legal and bureaucratic paper trail, as well as hearings, that go into deciding on whether it's legal to pursue a particular target with a drone.

Those three things, probably more, would need to be discussed intelligently and weighed together.

We could do that, or we could just decide if they are an adequate check and balance against the unilateral decision of a US President. The evidence suggests inadequacy to me.

I wouldn't recommend that, particularly with politicized issues we'd just have emotion run rough-shod which is apparently perfectly appropriate with Facebook memes and the like but it's usually not what a lot of the veteran posters aim for here.

I guess that's it though - deciding whether we want to feel warm and fuzzy about the opinions we already hold or whether we'd rather know what's actually true or false in the matter.

Well, I'm not an international lawyer, so I'll just have to feel satisfied doing the best I can to have a reasoned opinion.

They do not even exist yet but they are already getting the SJW treatment.
Having sex with robots is really, really bad, Campaign Against Sex Robots says

"Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo"

I am going to have to be in the right frame of mind to read that, but I can't wait. Thank you so much for understanding the kind of thing I like!