Slashdot Mirror


Robots that Lust and Reproduce

redcone writes "The Guardian unlimited is reporting that Korean roboticist Kim Jong-Hwan, who founded the robot football (soccer) World Cup, and is the director of the ITRC-Intelligent Robot Research Centre, has developed a series of artificial chromosomes that, he says, will allow robots to feel lusty, and could eventually lead to them reproducing."

59 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. Sound-Proofing by fembots · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess it's time to stock up those sound-proofing materials, I can't stand metal-grinding noise.

    Seriously though, what is the incentive for robots to reproduce? If they're so smart, they would've realized that they can simply upgrade or replace parts. They might enjoying sexing, but certainly not reproducing.

    1. Re:Sound-Proofing by Syre · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, they won't enjoy anything.

      For them to enjoy something they'd have to experience it and therefore have a consciousness.

      This professor is very mistaken when he says they will experience lust. Unless you define "lust" as "programmed tendency to move towards another robot and interface to it" or something.

      The most that this can do is to program sets of behavior probabilities. It won't by any means cause robots to suddenly become conscious beings.

    2. Re:Sound-Proofing by Antonymous+Flower · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mindless droids that love to hump? Why does this sound so familiar?

    3. Re:Sound-Proofing by ichimunki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sexual reproduction does more than simply perpetuate a species, it also offers genetic material an opportunity to mutate and to mix things up with compatible sets of genetic material. I don't think the robots as machines really need this as much as the software components of the robots would perhaps benefit from it... but then the software doesn't really need a robot to exist, any CPU with cycles would do.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    4. Re:Sound-Proofing by kid-noodle · · Score: 2, Informative

      I may be mistaken, but you seem to be confusing 'lust' with things like 'love' and other so-say higher order drives - lust is essentially an instinctual, pre-programmed thing. Presumably you're aware of a qualitative difference in internal state between love and 'mere' lust.

      Whether or not we'd be happy to say a robot could experience it, depends to some extent on whether you look at it from a top-down, or bottom-up perspective..

      --
      fortune -o
    5. Re:Sound-Proofing by dark_requiem · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From the article:

      He says the software, which will be installed in a robot within the next three months, will give the machines the ability to feel, reason and desire.

      ...

      Kim says this software is modelled on human DNA, though equivalent to a single strand of genetic code rather than the complex double helix of a real chromosome.


      Based on that, it is apparent that this guy is talking about some kind of very primitive AI with a simple level of sentience, based on a genetic algorithm. If this guy isn't nuts, he appears to be talking about creating the first "real" AI, albeit a very primitive one. If he's really managed to model the simple functioning of a simple chromosome, the he would have produced something that could evolve and advance as biological DNA does. If it achieved a decent level of self-awareness and intelligence, it might see fit to have more of its kind, for a variety of reasons. Just how randy it would get, I couldn't say. I can't imagine that it was meant to imply reproduction in the sexual sense, for obvious reasons.

      If this is indeed the case, and he pulls it off, it would be time to start talking seriously about the rights of an artificially created sentient being. I don't think there's any truly "safe" way we could create a sentient being and treat it as simple property and not expect it to one day try to free itself.

      There's also the possiblity that the guy's either unsuccessful or just a little unhinged, but we'll see, I suppose...

  2. Finally, by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 4, Funny

    A complete Fembot ! :D

    1. Re:Finally, by NardofDoom · · Score: 2, Funny

      A complete fembot would feel lust. Just not for you.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
  3. FCC notified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The word "lust" is forbidden on the wider Internet. The FCC, rulers of the Internet, founded by Al Gore, has been notified. Expect a DMCA take down notice shortly.

  4. Anyone think of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    790 from the series LEXX? That's reason enough not to do it. :-)

  5. Cassanova Dishwasher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great, now I have to watch out for my dishwasher humping my leg.

    1. Re:Cassanova Dishwasher by Coneasfast · · Score: 4, Funny

      Great, now I have to watch out for my dishwasher humping my leg.

      2 days later, the leg starts vomitting:

      leg: "i think i'm pregnant, i don't want to put you in a bad position. you can be as involved as you want"
      dishwasher: "but, but, you used protection! you used RCP, robot control pills"
      leg: "i know! i know! ... shit happens"

      etc... etc...

      --
      Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    2. Re:Cassanova Dishwasher by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny

      Great, now I have to watch out for my dishwasher humping my leg.

      Do you wear a prosthesis?

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  6. Great... by True+Freak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Horny Terminators.

    --
    My comments may be crap...but they are my crap...and I am brave enough to stand by them...Never post as AC!
    1. Re:Great... by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, if it's liquid metal, it can have any kind of manhood it wants!

    2. Re:Great... by kahanamoku · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I'll Be Back..... For More!"

      *shudder* Terminator 4: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Patrick and Kristanna Loken Get it on!

      --
      ----- Concentrate on promoting more than demoting.
  7. Getting lusty is one thing... by snuf23 · · Score: 4, Funny

    But they better have compatible hardware.

    --
    Sometimes my arms bend back.
    1. Re:Getting lusty is one thing... by Xshare · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, non-compatible hardware mating is okay too! Equal rights for all robots! If an A connector wants to marry a B connector, they should be allowed to! Don't bring your religion into this!

    2. Re:Getting lusty is one thing... by Coneasfast · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If an A connector wants to marry a B connector, they should be allowed to!

      uh, i'm confused, wouldn't it be an A connector that wants to marry another A connector be the controversial issue here?

      --
      Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
  8. How long by HyperChicken · · Score: 2, Funny

    How long before I can take my blank iRobot, goto kidnappster.com, download Lucy Lui, and make out in a movie theater?

    --
    Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
  9. Wow.. by ATAMAH · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well i hope they have sorted out a cooling system, since surely excessive friction will result in a lot of heat and melted metal.

  10. Thus starts.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... The Rise of the Machines!

    uh, no pun intended.

  11. This has to be said by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny

    I for one cannot stand that horrid rampant humanophilia all over the net. It's only for pervbots and it's disgusting.

    Regards,
    Cmdr Data

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  12. How? by desplesda · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He says the software, which will be installed in a robot within the next three months, will give the machines the ability to feel, reason and desire.

    How does that work? Genetic imperitive to reproduce is classified as reason now?

  13. One step closer by thesatch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All we would need to is stick one of those in a RealDoll, and we'd finally lose all use for the female race.

    1. Re:One step closer by period3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know what's funnier - that link, or the fact that it's modded 'Insightful'.

  14. pretty cruel by mitchskin · · Score: 5, Funny

    The summary says it will make them feel lusty, but that reproduction is in the future. How cruel is it to make them want to reproduce without being able to?

    Not that I've ever been in their position, of course. Ahem.

    1. Re:pretty cruel by xstonedogx · · Score: 5, Funny

      How cruel is it to make them want to reproduce without being able to?

      Boy are you in the right place.

  15. His statements were misheard. by ikkonoishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He really said rusty, but you know how those asian languages are with their Ls and Rs. :)

    Nah seriously. How is this important?

    If the robots need to reproduce they will have to have ways to build other robots. Robots can't use chromozonal mapping for protien creation like animals can. Therefore cromosomes are useless for robots.

    Of course the article could have completely misquoted him or misunderstood him, but in that case how is this news?

    Mod editor +1 Redundant

  16. I for one by Jozer99 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one welcome our new horny robot masters.

  17. I don't get it by Digital+Pizza · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In Korea, only old robots have sex.

    Sorry.

    I wish the article had more detail; I'd like to know how this is supposed to work. Is it just the control software that's "reproducing", or are these robots actually constucting copies of themselves?

    Robots with emotions is a cool idea in terms of fantasy/sci-fi, but is there a practical reason for it?

    What is the morality of having robots do dangerous jobs instead of humans? Kind of ruins the point of building robots in the first place.

    --
    We apologize for the inconvenience.
    1. Re:I don't get it by rayver · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's another article here that provides a little bit more detail. It's pretty much software... a quick snippet from that article to summarize it all: "The artificial chromosome is a software system. It means that the information - their 'genes' - can be easily sent to other robots," he said. "So if I send the chromosomes to another robot, that robot can then reproduce by itself. In that sense the robots will be created by the 'genes'. The personality of robots will be created by artificial genes." Dr Kim said there was no danger that such self-reproducing robots would take over the world as portrayed in movies such as this year's blockbuster I, Robot. "If we design the chromosomes quite safely, then we can avoid such a bad situation," he said.

  18. Robot pr0n? by digitalgimpus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess Robot pr0n like this will just become more popular.

    Think we'll have to wait until robots are 18 years old before they can be pr0n stars? I'm not sure if it's good to see robot todler pr0n. Then again, I guess they can be adults from birth... hmm.

    Oh how Congress will have fun debating the legality of robot pr0n.

  19. We already have robots that reproduce... by Black+Art · · Score: 4, Funny

    They are called "Promise Keepers".

    --
    "Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
  20. Re:Although I'm sure this is very interesting . . by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 2, Funny

    They wouldn't have to evolve. Thousands of the same stupid robots wopuld still be an issue.
    I mean, look how much damage the slashdot community can cause. :)

  21. More Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure if this is the direction we need to go
    in the current state of Artificial Intelligence research. I think there are more worthy areas of research, like trying to create intelligence that works . ( It all depends on your definition of Intelligence in AI, do you mean mimicking human intelligence or do you mean capturing the principles of "intelligence" and creating devices that are TRULY intelligent )

    If we take the latter notion then we need to make greater inroads in creating true intelligence in our devices ,then offshoot of that will lead naturally to researh into personalities. If we take the previous notion ( where we are just mimicking human behaviour ) then I guess it might just end up being another set of rule based system, or a system based on refined dependencies.

    This is a bit of rant, its not meant to be, but when evaluating things like this you need to look at what our notions of intelligence really area...

    1. Re:More Seriously by joto · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well, creating "lust" in an AI is certainly a worthwile goal. Most of human behaviour is governed by "lust". E.g. we are curious because we get satisfaction from learning new things. We are nice to each other because we get satisfaction from gratitude. And some people (e.g. Freud) seem to think most of this is connected to our lust to fuck someone.

      But then again, creating "lust" in an AI might be a bit harder than increasing the value of some evaluation function. But then again, maybe it isn't? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, even reasons like a duck, is it then a duck?

      If AI can be achieved simply by mimicking our own behaviour, it can actually be bad news. That means it might not be possible to create some simple reasoning engine. We actually have to work our way in increasingly complicated models, untill we no longer can tell the difference between it, and ourselves (or some other intelligent being). This could easily take thousands of years...

      The fast way could possibly be uploading...

  22. Cyberbullshit by Digital+Avatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, what, this means that he's encoded the behavior of his machines in a form resembling genetic code, in the sense that he intends for his machines to exchange code and recombine program segments to yield novel combinations of behavior?

    This article is just so much cyberbullshit it's hard to believe that it was posted.

  23. Condensed article.. by Tjoppen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Article in condensed form:

    Fuzzy logic
    Genetic algorithms
    Control robot behaviour
    "Some time in the future"

    It's easy to mimic feelings. Making up new ones or the robots evolving new ones though.. That's the tricky one.
    Also, cue a hundred or so futurama related jokes. In fact, I'll just hop on the bandwagon;

    - If robots don't reproduce - why are they so interested in sex?
    - Entirely for the perversion

  24. robots have more fun by SoupGuru · · Score: 3, Funny

    great, now machines will get more luvin than the average slashdotter....

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
  25. Are human desires appropriate for a machine? by headkase · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Humans have emotions such as love to ensure we care for our young and parters - love has had positive selection along evolution. But what need for love would an intelligent probe need out around Saturn?
    I'm not saying that emotions shouldn't be pursued for machines however. Emotions are great for giving us a general feeling about our environment, a sort of basic situational awareness. For example, if you had burned yourself previously on a stove you would probably be more wary of it through association with pain than if you had not.
    As for reproduction, in my opinion it's a non-issue that's actually more a bit of flamebait. Your kid ask's you where he came from and you'll tell him 'your mom'. A robot will just come from the factory and that's all. It would simply be one of those facts of life that a mind would learn early and just be one more datum within it's set of common knowledge.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Are human desires appropriate for a machine? by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      But what need for love would an intelligent probe need out around Saturn?
      What need? It sounds like you're looking at things from the robots' point of view.

      But you know better...

      Humans have emotions such as love to ensure we care for our young and parters - love has had positive selection along evolution.
      Or more accurately, genes program animals to feel lust in order to spread themselves. Lust isn't for the benefit of the entity feeling it. It's for the benefit of the entity that created the luster.

      So the question isn't what need does the robot have for this, but what need do I have for inflicting lust upon the robot? And the answer is: I want my Saturn-orbiting robot to sing songs about how lonely it is!

      Then I want it to notice that I put it into a slightly decaying orbit and for it to realize it doesn't have enough propellant to correct the situation. And write songs about its inevitable mortality.

      Then I want it to realize that it's my fault the robot it is experiencing these things, and sing angry songs about "the robot condition" and how cruel Go^H^H I was, to engineer such circumstances. I want it to sing about its vengeful fantasies, such as what it would do it if were in orbit around Earth with knowledge of my coordinates and control of a nuclear-tipped missile.

      A lusty robot is an automatic art generator.

      And the ultimate illusion: the Saturn orbit and existence as a space probe, were just a simulation. My little singing robot is just a python script who has no idea where or what he really is. Muahahahahah!!! And the songs he sings, are really just output to files, which I will fraudulently claim credit for. So much suffering, so much profit!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:Are human desires appropriate for a machine? by CreatureComfort · · Score: 2, Funny


      Wow...

      I didn't know Mick Jagger had a 5-digit ID on slashdot, or that he was a l33t Python programmer.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  26. Just what I need by Tragek · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just what I Need to help my confidence, robots getting it more than I do.

  27. Gives a whole new meaning to.. by howman · · Score: 2, Funny

    that f*ucking computer...

    --
    flinging poop since 1969
  28. True geeks? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


    Robot: I'm horny; I think I'll build a new robot.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  29. Truly horrifying by rewt66 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Modern mankind's problem is this: We are convinced that we are machines.

    This is not a casual statement. If you believe that the laws of physics are the most fundamental things there are, then the logic is inescapable. You are determined by the laws of physics, chemistry, and neurology. You have no free will. What you think of as thinking is just neurological machinery over which you have no control - it controls you. There is no such thing as love; all there is is chemical machinery. All we are is machines. (The only escape from this logic is if you don't accept the premise - that all there really is is the laws of physics.)

    The horror of the modern position is that we cannot accept that we are just machines. We feel that we are more, that humans are not just machines. And so we feel that we are more, but rationally we are driven to view ourselves as just machines.

    If this is the modern human's horror, why do we want to take machines, and give them feelings? If it's horrifying to have human feelings, but rationally be forced to accept that you are only a machine, how horrifying is it to have human feelings, but be trapped in the body of a machine?

    Note: The above analysis closely follows the thoughts of Francis Schaeffer. I can't claim much credit for it.

    1. Re:Truly horrifying by thelen · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you believe that the laws of physics are the most fundamental things there are, then the logic is inescapable.

      Actually, reductionism/determinism at the level of mental phenomena is a hard sell and is hardly as obvious a conclusion as Schaeffer wants it to be. For one, there's plenty of good work going in CogSci about consciousness as an emergent phenomenon without a strictly causal relation underlying physical processes. For another, there are those (i.e., David Chalmers) who argue that consciousness is a fundamentally irreducible phenomenon. Still further, we have this strange capacity to formulate normative principles ("One ought to tell the truth") and it's hard to explain such things without some notion of free will (see Christine Korsgaard).

      But Schaeffer doesn't care about these sorts of objections because he's really just interested in the punchline -- Jesus! -- and in order to set it up he has to create a problem: "The Horror of Modern (Mechanical) Man".

  30. Code for the male robot by JFMulder · · Score: 5, Funny

    int main() {
    while( 1 ) {
    lust();
    }
    return -1; // We should not get here, return an error code.
    }

  31. What, no refrence to realdoll yet!? by potus98 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This article's been up for an hour and there's been no reference to combining such technology with realdolls? /.ers are getting slow...

    --
    This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
  32. We don't know by dustmite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is not that we can't "re-create it". In fact we might have already. The problem is that we can't measure it.

    We can't even measure it in each other, because we really don't know of any measurable physical properties that may determine the presence of consciousness. And because we don't know how to measure it, we cannot know if we've already created it. Not you, nor anyone here on slashdot or anywhere else. For all we know, modern silicon-based CPUs already have some (very) dim, glimmering cognitive awareness of sorts. We really do not know. It is completely unfounded for anyone to claim that it has not happened yet (or likewise that it has happened) if we don't even have a clue what it really is or how to measure its existence. Heck, it's so elusive we don't even have a rational definition for it.

    We don't know what physical (or otherwise?) properties of the human brain result in sentience. At all. Therefore we cannot predict what physical properties (possibly already present) could give rise to sentience in man-made creations. We have no 'measuring device' to stick in the brain that 'detects' sentience. (Asking "are you sentient" is futile, because the answer to that is computational.)

    In fact we probably never will know if our own creations have "consciousness" until we figure out how to measure if other humans have it.

    (Unless you are referring to a computational ability to "compute" and consider the "self", but that is not related to consciousness, that is pure computational machinery, just 'nuts and bolts', the mechanics of processing the understanding thereof. This is most likely completely separate to consciousness; any self-diagnostic system is "aware" of itself in that sense, and an advanced one could conceivably answer questions "Do you exist" and "Are you thinking" purely computationally - with or without sentience.)

    1. Re:We don't know by Luthair · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Consciousness and sentience are reaction to external stimuli, other definitions fall into metaphysics.

      On a more humourous note, Robot + Lust = Bender on Futurama.

    2. Re:We don't know by ralphclark · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You sound like the perfect scientist: until it is proven false it must be true.

      If that is how you believe science operates, you clearly don't know the first thing about science or scientists. I bet you get all your "science" from the National Enquirer and the Discovery Channel.

      Cognitive awareness is not taught and learned and something that is not living will never have cognitive awareness.


      Oh, really. And when, and by whom, was this demonstrated exactly? Oh I see - you made it up.

      Being an ignorant fool, therefore, it would probably be best for you to shut up and leave the talking to those who are able to think straight, and who know the difference between evidence and logic on the one hand, and unthinking assumption on the other.
    3. Re:We don't know by neuromortis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes and no. We cannot measure consciousness and sentience in others as anything other than physical effects, so establishing the consciousness of a machine would in fact be a metaphysical project. However, this is not to say that the question is meaningless, although it would likely be irrelevant if our goal is simply to create an artificial being which exhibits sentient-qualities.

      [Warning: I've had difficulties explaining this concept to people offline, so I apologize if I am unclear below.]

      The difference between your mind and a machine (possibly your brain) which produces responses that make us think it has a mind is that of sensation or experience. By this I do not mean that it can process visual data or that it can act based on past data, but rather that what's going on in your mind has a peculiarly mental aspect.

      Consider what happens when you look at a blue wall and when a sophisticated, camera-equipped computer looks at a blue wall. Both (we will assume) can look at it and report that they are looking at a blue wall, but most of us would want to say there is something different going on in each case. The computer receives input through the camera which results in some transistors flipping between states and ultimately gives an output "The wall is blue."

      Something similar happens with your brain. Light goes into your eyeball, some neurons fire, and you announce "The wall is blue." But something else also happens: you experience "blueness." You have a sensation, one which cannot be reduced to words (the problem of trying to explain color to a blind man).

      It also cannot yet be easily reduced to physical processes. Particular neuron firings might always be connected with your experience, but we do not yet have a mechanism to explain it. We have no "sension particles" or whatever that explain how a bunch of atoms bouncing off each other somehow result in your seeing blue. This is not to say that they are not intimately related, but merely that it is an incomplete description of what is going on.

      In summary, there's a difference between processing blue and seeing blue. It may be irrelevant to simulating people, but the fact that I see blue is pretty damn significant to me and serves as the identifying characteristics between me and what I perceive to be unsensing machines.

      --

      I build model citizens.
    4. Re:We don't know by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Consciousness and sentience are reaction to external stimuli, other definitions fall into metaphysics.

      By this definition, anything that can be perceived has a consciousness.

      If you can perceive something, that something must somehow interact with its surroundings (you, at the very least). By the law of force and counterforce, if an entity exerts a force on anything (for example, reflects photons) then an equal but opposite counterforce is exerted on the entity. This counterforce will cause a deformation (due to uneven distribution of force on different parts of the entity) and/or acceleration (if the entity is free-floating) of the entity.

      Therefore, all observable entities react to external stimuli; it's that very reaction that makes them observable.

      IMHO physics is a wrong tool to try to explain consciousness. It would be extremely difficult to explain even simple information-handling systems (such as the Linux kernel, for example) with nothing but physics, so of course trying to explain comples ones (like consciousness) is an exercise in futility. It could be done, theoretically, it's just very, very painfull.

      Think physics as the assembly of the universe; anything that can be done, can be done with it, but that doesn't mean it's the best tool for every purpose.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  33. Kim Jong-Hwan did NOT found RoboCup by jddqr · · Score: 4, Informative
    The original article is grossly erroneous. Kim Jong-Hwan had nothing to do with RoboCup, but rather the "Micro-Robot World Cup Soccer Tournament", which is a copy-cat event, and is orders of magnitude less popular than RoboCup.

    From http://robocup.mi.fu-berlin.de/buch/chap1/HistoryR oboCup.html :

    But there was Korea and researchers there were also active organizing their own robotic league. In September 1995, Jong Hwan Kim started the Micro-Robot World Cup Soccer Tournament (MiroSot). The first MiroSot competition was held in November 1996 in Korea with 23 teams from 10 countries. Mirosot tournaments followed then every year from 1997 to 2002, sometimes in the same country as the RoboCup events, as was the case in 1998 (France) and 2000 (Australia). However, in the MiroSot league only small robots compete, there is nothing similar to the mid-size robots used in RoboCup and there was no legged league until 2002. There is of course a kind of rivalry between MiroSot and RoboCup, each one claiming to be the World Cup on Robotic Soccer, but the RoboCup events have become much larger, are better organized and publicized as the MiroSot tournaments.

  34. You're all looking at it the wrong way. by sail4evr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everyone is thinkng about r2d2 wanting sex. That's pretty rediculous. We should be thinking about David in A.I. Artificial Intelligence. When David grows up and becomes lustful, without the 3 Robotic Laws, what will hold him back from taking what he wants, man or woman? That's the con side. On the pro side he won't suffer the ravages of age

  35. here we go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    1. artificially intelligent robots
    2. meat-eating robots
    3. lust-filled robots
    4. hybrid AI/meat-eating/lust-filled robots
    5. ?
    6. PROFIT...if you're still around!

  36. They already exist! by the+hermit · · Score: 2, Informative

    at dieselsweeties.com...

    Watch out for Red Robot!