First off, in order for a machine to respond like a human would, it would have to think like a human would, which at this point is impossible. While computers and the human brain are alike, it is only in the most basic sense (both record, encode, and store information). Computers encode information in a series of ones and zeros. No one is sure how the human brain encodes information, and until we figure it out, things like AI will be completely out of our reach.

Also, I think that about two years before the big breakthroughs that will change machines into people, any technology that can do so will be completely banned from use.

On a side note, no, I need a person next to me in order for me to feel safe. A robot wouldn't be able to do that.

I would NOT have robot sex, but I WOULD have Holodeck sex if it was realistic enough. There was even an episode of Star Trek where Lieutenant Barkley had sex with a holographic Counselor Troi and seemed to really like it. There was also an episode where Lieutenant Yar had sex with Data, but it didn't seem to like it to much. Basically I would NOT have robot sex, but I WOULD have Holodeck sex if if was realistic enough.

Not to give ground for my pro-cybersex opinions, but Barkley is hardly normal and couldn't get a real woman any more than Scotty could go sober. And Tasha was drunk (airborne alcohol, but still drunk), her discomfort was more attributed to the uneasiness she perceived her job would now contain, as opposed to any lack of skill on Data's part.

The_Logician19:
First off, in order for a machine to respond like a human would, it would have to think like a human would, which at this point is impossible. While computers and the human brain are alike, it is only in the most basic sense (both record, encode, and store information). Computers encode information in a series of ones and zeros. No one is sure how the human brain encodes information, and until we figure it out, things like AI will be completely out of our reach.

Also, I think that about two years before the big breakthroughs that will change machines into people, any technology that can do so will be completely banned from use.

On a side note, no, I need a person next to me in order for me to feel safe. A robot wouldn't be able to do that.

We were talking hypothetical, so whatever technology advances we have today aren't the issue. As to feeling safe, I'd not feel safe with the holographic lover (wouldn't feel unsafe because of her, just she wouldn't lend that "There's somebody there to watch over me" feeling. With an android lover, it's a whole other deal. A lover and bone-breaking bodyguard all in one.

it wont wipe us out. if everything better then faping it but less good then sex wiped out mankind then our left hand and dead babies would have killed us long ago

well, actually, mankind has already developed some AI already, tho has not yet developed general AI (or "strong AI").
i personally believe general AI might be possible within the next 100-200 years.
the thing that is both the human brains greatest and worst trait is the ability to reason, or the ability to make logical and accurate decisions without having all the required data,
(truly, we NEVER have all the required information we need to make an exact decision, because we would need the exact calculations of EVERYTHING in the universe to do so.)
this is a plus because we nvr have all the info we need, so reasoning allows us to make an educated guess of what to do.
the bad side of reasoning is that we then dont always make accurate decisions, even on stuff that we could get exact, such as math equations.

computers are designed to make completely accurate decisions, based on their programming. this then makes a true "strong AI" program incredibly difficult, because how do u tell a computer to solve a+b-c*d/e=f without the computer knowing a, c, or f? how can you truly make a computer "guess"?

Khell_Sennet:
Many people have commented on the idea that if we develop a convincing sexbot, Neural VR or holodeck technology, humanity is doomed to extinction because we'll stop looking for real mates and population growth will go to zero...

Those people also probably try and explain modern dating behavior in terms of evolution: in other words, they're just big fans of the kind of science that religious people are not to fond of. That makes those people jump to all kinds of silly conclusions.

People haven't been having kids solely as a byproduct of what makes their genitals feel good since...probably since we first started painting on cave walls. People have kids because they want to have a family.

The funny thing is that argument is really just the 'gay and lesbians can't marry because they can't have children and if we let them marry then there won't be any more kids' screed that religious nutjobs put out, repackaged in secular terms for people who can't stand religious nutjobs.

People are already looking for mates that will never get them pregnant: they're called *lesbians* and they have turkey basters, so, humanity isn't going anywhere just because people are going to be able to have sex without the risk of pregnancy thanks to the technology of Thanksgiving.

The_Logician19:
First off, in order for a machine to respond like a human would, it would have to think like a human would, which at this point is impossible.

Since we're talking about sexbots, does that mean it would have to think doing tequila shots on an empty stomach is a great idea?

Seriously, though, great topic: don't know where I come down on it, but, really makes one think.

Nah, it's just for when masturbation isn't enough, but there isn't anyone around (or your single) to get it on with.. even if people used it more than they should, I'm sure we'd just go back to the population we should have stayed at, instead of all this "We are over-populated and everyone now lives in either india or china" stuff.

Honestly, I'm surprised we still don't have sex bots.

I wouldn't understand holodeck sex because holograms have no mass. It would be like watching strippers you can put your hands (and other things) through. Robots are barely able to walk around let alone have sex but when that day comes (hahahaha) when we do start having sex with robots then nothing will really change.

I mean honestly, what does a robot have over a real women. You would have to clean her, make sure she (or he) is working well, you would have to power it with something and it would need regular mateniance. It also will have the charisma of a dried wall, you wouldn't be able to talk to it or really enjoy its company, it isn't the sort of thing you could take out on a date, it will also be boring. Very similar to a doll that makes noises and maybe moves its arms about every now and again. There is also the chance of a horrible injury from it's metal vice like legs.

Unless a horrible epidemic of genital worts occurs in the future none of these products will sell well.

Anyone with any sort of self control would treat either of those simply as really advanced porn.

And seeing as we have porn currently and it's not seriously affecting population growth, we should be alright.

Nintendo are big on there peripherals; when are we going to see Wii-Sex?

I guess we already have the PG rated, metaphoric goodness of that with all the frantic stick waggling in Wii games.

I like both ideas, as its the perfect way to remove the sort of people who would go in for that, who are also coincidentally the sort of people who should be removed from the gene pool, from said gene pool, as well as cutting down on the population problem.

Meh, it's all sex, right?
...
Uh, I suppose I wouldn't, only 'cos I'm a stickler for good ol' sex.

i guess it would cut out all the misinterpretation.

but no, i do like surprises

Oh I would definatly give up women for virtual sex. Women are just too much hassle for honestly very little payoff and there is nothing that can make you feel like utter shit as much as another person can. To sum it up far better then I can ill leave it up to Shiunji.
http://www.sexylosers.com/119.html

I suspect that one day we will and we'll call the eventual model "Six", and then in the long run we'll be screwed over.

It'll happen eventually and I'm not worried, just for once I'm not going for the 'oh no it's the end of humanity' mood - things change. There was a time we thought you had to cover up your legs and there will be a time in which we think virtual sex is pretty awesome.

Khell_Sennet:
My question to you is: Assuming the 'bot or sim were realistic enough, with true AI and/or sentience...

If you are single - Would you give up on the whole dating scene and pursue a life of happiness with a cybernetic/digital lover?

No doubt, yes.
It's not like I've ever actually been on the 'dating scene' altogether, though.
Perhaps it includes a miraculous 'Make Life Better' button, I wouldn't know.
And as of this moment, I have no intentions of ever marrying either, so a sexbot would be quite welcome.

If it was clever enough for you to have a long term relationship with it, wouldn't it also be clever enough to realise that it is a slave programmed to be with you and be disgusted at that situation?

Woah, this thread is alive?

...necromancy, says I.

In all seriousness though, I think the question of whether a sexbot can truly 'think' or not is besides the point. Women don't pick out their vibrators based on IQ scores, do they?

Anyone who would consider having sex with a robot has got to be a virgin.

That is a stupid comment. I have had my share of experiences with women and yet I would still give each and every one of them up in a heartbeat. I also know a few women who have decided men aint worth the hassle so just bought a decent vibrator which essentially is the same thing.

TheMightyAtrox:
Anyone who would consider having sex with a robot has got to be a virgin.

Asinine and incorrect. I'd nail a cyberchick and I'm no virgin.

TheMightyAtrox:
Anyone who would consider having sex with a robot has got to be a virgin.

Or wants to avoid the HIV.

Or wants to go ass and then mouth.

Or wants to have a three-way without having to worry about the emotional fallout.

Maybe they can make sexbots that double as venereal disease testing/treatment machines.

Burld:
If it was clever enough for you to have a long term relationship with it, wouldn't it also be clever enough to realise that it is a slave programmed to be with you and be disgusted at that situation?

Or overjoyed at that situation. Remember the 'Dish of the Day' in "Restaurant at the End of the Universe"?

With the people saying that the AI or robot would only be capable of "love" in a cursory purely-mechanical and programmed sort of way, I'm forced to ask the epistemological question: how do we justify regarding ourselves as something other than robots. In neurology, we're finding more and more that we can track specific responses to specific parts of the brain. How can we hold ourselves, our consciousnesses, to be anything more than an exceptionally complex machine?

Seldon2639:
How can we hold ourselves, our consciousnesses, to be anything more than an exceptionally complex machine?

Same way we can hold ourselves to have natural rights that other exceptionally complex machines would not.

Not saying that I have an *answer* just that if we're just "an exceptionally complex machine" for purposes of love, we'd have to hold the same for purposes of stuff like morality. You could ask the same question of someone holding that an AI or robot would only be capable of "evil" in a cursory purely-mechanical and programmed sort of way.

In other words, it's not so much a question about love, but about the distance between things we associate with humanity (love, moral choices, aesthetic appreciation) and exceptionally complex machines (where all those things can be imitated, but only in a "cursory purely-mechanical and programmed sort of way" that does not qualify them as 'real').