Human-Robot Love and Marriage

An anonymous reader writes "MSNBC has an article on the impending robo-human coupling: 'My forecast is that around 2050, the state of Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots,' artificial intelligence researcher David Levy at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands told LiveScience."

Comments

DON'T DATE ROBOTS

[katterjohn]

This message brought to you by the Space Pope

Re:DON'T DATE ROBOTS

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually, you can reprogram just about any living thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

In fact, most couples are constantly training each other. The problem is that in order to train someone, you need to decide what the desired behavior is, then decide on how to reward them, and finally to avoid being trained yourself. Random rewards work best.

I think that operant conditioning is why a lot of couples do not have sex. (NOT the only reason)

Each time they are rejected, it is a punishment. There has to be an optimum odds of approval (over 90% but below 100% I think.) Finally, the behavior extinguishes. It's odd because even 1 in 6 food pellets can keep a rat going but humans and sex seems to require higher reinforcement to keep a high rate going. Our "discouraged" rate seems to be once every three to five weeks.

Re:DON'T DATE ROBOTS

[Bluesman]

Gotta disagree with this one. And you can never, ever, ever program a robot to act like a woman. There's a simple reason -- women do not operate according to any logical thought process, nor have they been given the gift of free will.

If you've been married more than five years, you've had this conversation, especially if you've had a child:

Wife: "Booohooohooohooo!"
Husband: "What's wrong?"
Wife: "Nothing. *sniff*"
Husbad: "Really?"
Wife: "*sniff* Yeah, I'm fine."
Husband: "Then why are you crying?"
Wife: "I don't know!"

There's just no way you can anticipate or train things like this. I think the closest you can get with a robot is to train it, then take a baseball bat to some of the circuitry.

But this is a good thing. You seriously don't want your robot to go out to a "party" with other robots and come home having spent $160 on five boutique candles because they came with a free gift in a pink bag.

Don't Date Robots!

[orkysoft]

My god, he hasn't seen the video!

Re:Don't Date Robots!

[lostsatellite82]

Good this they only have Lucy Liu so far. The day they start making Natalie Portman, the world stops producing babies.

Re:Don't Date Robots!

[orkysoft]

No, it would just prevent the Slashdot trolls from producing babies, which isn't much of a change at all.

Re:This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I worked with one fellow who had his penis injured by a computer.

Some of IBM's mid-range systems from the late 1980s (actually quite large, physically, by today's standards...) had a circular opening about 2 inches in diameter. This opening was near some circuitry or device that would heat up rather quickly. So with the help of some duct tape and foam, this hardware admin fashioned himself a warm vagina of sorts, right on the side of our IBM system.

We're not sure how long he had a "relationship" with the system, but it came to an end one day when during lunch he ran over to a group of us, with his hands covered in blood. Apparently the foam vagina tore, and a piece of metal got him on the penis shaft. He went to the hospital, and was okay in the end. But he didn't really last long with the company after that...

This was a triumph

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm making a note here:
HUGE SUCCESS!

Remember, your companion cube will never stab you.

Re:stupid

[sharkey]

Why not marry your lawnmower?

YOU try sticking your dick in the lawnmower, THEN you'll know.

Obligatory Lucy LiuBot...

[Whatsmynickname]

Liubot: Oh, Fry, I love you more than the moon and the stars and the - poetic image number 37 not found

look, flying cars, in the sky, right now!

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's one field that's progressed fairly craply since the '70s, it's AI (and we were predicting this sort of stuff then - by the start of the 21st century). Yes, we have working algorithms to solve specific problems, and a metric tonne of unconnected papers on the nature of intelligence from every discipline, but the general question of producing something capable of developing human intelligence has not been tackled successfully.

An academic in a technical field - or, indeed, the average "expert", to be differentiated from a visionary or "big thinker" - himself acts like a very advanced robot in his field; he has got where he is because he has a great memory for previous results, and a great ability to pattern match to apply to similar problems. If this individual is in AI, he creates models in his own image, which are then doomed to be highly specific.

Humans are more general than this, simply because we're not singularly goal-directed as all these models assume. Put another way: imprison a baby in a bubble and tell him that his only task in life is to compose beautiful music, and he will not - just as non-ethological experiments on primates usually fail to witness intelligent behaviour, because there is no incentive to be intelligent in a cage.

AI needs the sherpherding of visionaries, not necessarily scientists. Certainly not single-minded-goal-directed scientists.

Re:look, flying cars, in the sky, right now!

[HiThere]

One thing to remember is that when it comes to AI, computers are still underpowered. Things are just now getting to the point where small groups with moderate funding can start serious experimentation. Up until this decade there's been what.. 5 people in the world? ..who had adequate computer power to test their theories on anything except toy problems. This decade that number's going to explode!

N.B.: Even this decade the computers will be underpowered for anything serious...but high end user-space systems will be able to tackle more than toy problems. At this point we start getting cars that can drive themselves. (DARPA contest to the contrary, we aren't quite there yet.) We might also start getting useful conversations in a clipped form of basic English. (The problem there is that the programs don't have enough real world knowledge to operate outside of specialist domains...so they're quite brittle.)

But today's interactive systems probably have less computing power on the average than does a mosquito. So it's not too surprising that no real AI has materialized. The question is what's the minimal capacity for understanding natural language...unfortunately, this seems to be equivalent to "how much knowledge of the world do you need to have in order to operate resiliently?" A depressingly large number. But a lot of English can't even be parsed without understanding what's being talked about. So people makes guesses until one of them turns a bunch of phonemes into something sensible. [Note that you can't even get word boundaries without knowing "sort of" what's being said.])

Now many techniques that were originally created for artificial intelligence ARE being used regularly and all over the programming space...but those aren't AI.

Also consider that some important pieces, e.g. expert systems, aren't useful outside of the proper context, but are very powerful within it. But these are *COMPONENTS*. It's like complaining because your car's transmission isn't a good vehicle. (OTOH, this isn't entirely a neutral statement. Many of these pieces were oversold by early promulgators who believed that they'd found the last needed piece. It's not a situation of "No blame.".)

My current projections put extensively useful AI around 2020, and human level AI around 2030. There may be one or two early arrivals, but computer power necessary to embody them won't be cheap enough.

OTOH, the early arrivals are very important. AIs may be programs, but they also need to learn about the world. This takes YEARS. A decade is pushing it, especially for a new entity who doesn't have a well-defined position in the social matrix. But once it is created, it's a program, and can easily be copied to multiple machines. So if a company creates and raises an AI around '17 (when the equipment for doing so is still too expensive for anything outside a research lab), by '23 (when the const is considerably more reasonable) the entity can be emplaced into, say, a certain kind of new car that can drive itself and park itself, and come for you when you call for it, and protect itself against being stolen...and link itself back to the company for information and upgrades. The next model year they also come out with a wheelchair for quadriplegics that and care for them, assistant surgeons, and agricultural field workers. Experience about the world has been accumulating at a tremendous rate, so the next year they come out with a robot nanny (lots of miniaturization has been going on these last two years!). By the time we get to 2030, we have robot units that are as useful as people in *many* situations, and sessile units that are much more intelligent, but which also understand the world.

Things won't necessarily happen this way, but they could. If so, society will be coerced into an extremely rapid change. This change could take many different forms, from the extremely dystopian to the extremely utopian.

O, yes. And if any particular country should decide to not

Re:Mass

[tinrobot]

I've often observed that the people most freaked out by homosexuality are repressing it within themselves.

Nah homoseuality isn't natural .. but

[OzPeter]

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
Bruce Bagemihl
St Martins Press, 1999
ISBN 0-312-19239-8 (hc)
ISBN 0-312-25377-X (pbk)

750 pages of documented animal same sex behaviour from around the world covering pretty well covering every area of fauna speaks for itself.

Which always makes me ask questions when I hear people say that homeosexuality is a choice.

If it is free choice, and animals perform homosexual acts, does that mean that animals have free will and the ability to make such a choice?

Re:Nah homoseuality isn't natural .. but

[OzPeter]

Well it is a specious argument .. its about other species!!

But I would argue that it is not a specious argument. Conservatives argue that homesexuality is a choice. A choice implies the ability to make a decision. But the conservative opinion also seems to be that only humans have the ability to make a free choice. So after documenting that animals partake in homosexual behaviour either you have to accept that homesexuality is not a choice, but a part of nature, or you have to concede that animals are capable of making choices in the same manner that humans are. You can't have it both ways.

Re:Nah homoseuality isn't natural .. but

[s4m7]

The question was not about whether homosexuality was "right or wrong," but whether it was natural or not. Perfectly natural, but so is murder, and so are eating and crapping. The "Naturality" of something has nothing to do with its moral rectitude.

Re:Nah homoseuality isn't natural .. but

[khallow]

Heh, then there's the matter of whether it's right or wrong to want those things. My take has always been that it's irrelevant whether homosexual relationships are by choice or not. There is no inherent wrongness in the relationship, hence no need for the discussion.

Re:Nah homoseuality isn't natural .. but

[KermodeBear]

I own this book and it is a fascinating read. Not only does it describe homosexual coupling, but it also covers many instances of family building. An example of this are two male lions who would take lion cubs from other pride and raise them. This book is, afaic, definitive proof that homosexual behavior is natural. This implies that it is a genetic trait - it generally isn't going to be learned behavior in these circumstances - which implies that it is not a choice.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions about it being 'good' or 'bad'.

I've also always been a proponent of free will for animals. I don't see why my dog, for example, would have no free will but a two year old child does. Both think and both can make decisions and weigh consequences.

Re:Nah homoseuality isn't natural .. but

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure that they're actively homosexual, and not just too stupid to know one sex from the other? I mean, small dogs hump anything, just means they're dumb, really.

Re:Nah homoseuality isn't natural .. but

[Pantero Blanco]

No, you need to re-read his post. He was saying that whether something is "natural" has nothing to do with whether it's right.

For example, alligators sometimes eat their young. It's not "unnatural", but most people wouldn't be okay with other humans doing it.

Most animals don't wear pants. It's "unnatural", but most people wouldn't say it's immoral.

Anyway, the religious leaders who call homosexuality "unnatural" aren't talking about whether or not animals do it, because they know very well that they do. They believe that homosexuality in humans is encouraged by a supernatural source - temptation by Satan. They're talking about the spirits-and-witches type of "unnatural", not the pants kind. Of course, non-religious people who don't believe the first exists tend to assume they mean the second.

Re:Nah homoseuality isn't natural .. but

[YttriumOxide]

Some people don't even believe "free will" exists, and many have an agnostic viewpoint about it. If it does exist in humans, I don't see any reason that animals wouldn't have it, or that it wouldn't be "natural".

Mod parent up for this!

I consider "free will" to be a combination of the complexity of the factors that determine a choice and how well the individual understands these factors. If there is a lot of complexity, with little understanding of the factors involved, then it appears as free will. You'd have a hard time finding a creature with more complexity AND less understanding than a human being, and so we consider ourselves to have free will.

From this, you can see that I consider everything to be determined. And I'm okay with this - free will implies randomness, and I am strongly opposed to the idea that anything is random (yes, God Does NOT Play Dice! (I even have the same views on supposed "chance" in quantum mechanics, but that's another topic entirely)). So, if one believes in a lack of "free will" should one act any differently? Not really. I can fully accept that I don't understand all of the factors involved in my conscious "decisions" and therefore I can continue to act as if it is free will, while still holding the belief that it isn't.

If the above makes no sense to you, ignore it - it's my viewpoint, and it's shared by many others, but it probably isn't going to change your life.

Yeah, right

[SmallFurryCreature]

How long have we had computers around now? They sure have gotten intelligent right. No, your basic PC is still the same collection of dumb electronics as it were 20 years ago. No OS/interface has even come close to being intelligent.

Even a simple thing as translation is beyond todays tech. At best you might hope for a mere word for word translation, with the program often having no clue how to deal with words that are not exactly in its dictionary. As for context based translation, forget it.

So how is this "robot" going to understand a human? It can't. It would be like marrying a severly retarded person.

But this 50 years in the future. So? We have had 50 years of computing by now if not more and what progress has really been made?

If I only look at games then the recent Supreme Commander is offcourse the sequel to Total Annihilation and any number of RTS games. The AI? Frankly it sucks donkey balls, start skirmish mode, turn off fog of war and prepare to cry as the AI commander builds an endless amount of lowest level power generators right next to a land factory meaning that it is stuck for the rest of the game because it can't move for the low level units squeezed around it and the structures.

This happens every single game, all you have to do is build a basic defence to defeat the light attacks get an artillery force and just shell the commanders position from a safe position (they blow up), repeat for all the commanders and voila, another skirmish won.

There is not a single game that I ever played that is an exception to the dumb ai rule. No matter what game, once you figured out the AI routine, you got them beat, because they are NOT AI. They are scripts. No more intelligent then a tech support guy who works of a cue sheet.

A real AI would have to be capable to deal with something it hasn't been programmed for, that is what we humans can do most of the time. No AI tech I have seen or read about is capable of doing that, in fact the best we are trying at the moment is to come up with specialists programs that in a very limited scope can excel at a very limited task.

Take for instance those robots you get that can sort a number of objects. Very nice, but if they were truly intelligent you could take a robot tasked with sorting by color and get it to sort by alphabet, ON ITS OWN! Humans can, if you are a sorter at a production line told to sort apples by size, and all of a sudden I replace it with books and tell you to sort by alphabet, you can do it. Tell me of a program that even comes close to this.

50 years from now? We haven't made any real progress in the last 50 years. It ain't about hardware, the problem is that a program that can deal with anything might just not exist.

The best bet might be to recreate a real human brain, however if you do it with biology, then offcourse you just managed to create a human being, who we better give all the same rights anyway or find ourselves just with a new form of slavery.

No, sorry if this guy really think AI has advanced this far, some game company should set him a challenge of creating a proper AI for a game.

a sex robot with us already, disguised as a horse

[ofcourseyouare]

The article dwells on marriage with robots, which I can't see happening anytime soon; but robots as a replacement for human prostitutes? Absolutely.

The oldest profession is driven by one of humanity's most basic problems (there just aren't enough sexy people to go round) but has lots of downsides (disease, wasted lives, etc). Sex robots seem like a great solution -- provided they are realistic enough to keep the customer satisfied.

So, naturally, we need a X-prize for this problem: a competition for a sex robot that can pass a sexual Turing test. The original Turing Test was for a machine able to hold a conversation indistinguishable from human conversation. We clearly need a sexual Turing test, for a machine able to generate a sexual experience indistinguishable from sex with a human.

I suggest we need two categories:
1) one for "fully autonomous" sex robots, driven by their own AI
2) the other category for "puppet robots" controlled remotely by human operators who would move the robot's limbs, speak through its mouth, etc.

Obviously to start with, robots in the puppet category could be much more realistic than those in the autonomous category. The job of being an operator would be very similar to the job of working on a sex chat line.

But even robots in the autonomous category might be reasonably convincing, even using current technology as used in Aibo or toys such as the "Fur Real Friends Butterscotch Pony".http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000F475PY/reamonsit-21/

Butterscotch is a soft pony toy costing $299 which responds if you stroke it etc. It's not a huge leap from this sort of reaction to the sort of response one would need for a sex robot. Just read the blurb for Butterscotch and replace in your mind the word "pony" with "girl" or "boy"...

With realistic animation, movement and sounds, this incredibly lifelike pony is a very special, once-in-a-lifetime friend. This adorable pony ...really 'comes alive' as she moves and responds to your loving care! Touch or talk to your pony and her head moves! As you continue to interact with her, watch her ears wiggle and her eyes blink! Be sure to take extra-special care of your pony. Feed her the carrot and groom her with her brush. Watch her swish her tail back and forth! She even whinnies and snorts, and will sniff your hand! Sit on your pony for a pretend ride...!

The sex robot is with us already; just currently disguised as a horse...

Data

[dotancohen]

Didn't Data mention to Tasha that he is "fully functional" once?

No. And not for "conservative" reasons.

[pla]

My forecast is that around 2050, the state of Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots

Using an artificial device for sexual purposes does not equal marriage, people.

Marriage exists for one reason, and one reason only - Succession of property rights. Allowing humans and robots to marry would mean allowing robots to own land. No more, no less.

You can talk about medical power of attorney (would that even apply to a robot?); a stable environment for raising children (definitely wouldn't apply); a religious institution to make sex okay to your friend in the sky (yeah, like the fundies wouldn't just love this one); but all those come secondary to the state sanctioning a legal contract between two humans.

Re:stupid

[adisakp]

I don't think mechanical love will hurt human marriage. In fact, mechanical love has been making human marriages work better since at least the 1880's and possibly as early as 1653. And just a point in fact, the early ancestors of loving robots have been more common than toasters since 1917.

Much bigger issue than that of marriage

[It doesn't come easy]

Marriage is a contract. It implies enforcible rights for all parties which are part of the contract. One can already have sex with a machine without requiring marriage. Marriage is much more than just sex. Were human society to allow "marriage" to a machine, it would also have to have accepted many other rights that go hand in hand with the concept of a "person". And even 40 years from now I would bet that human society will have a fundamentally difficult time giving a machine the same rights as a human. For example, imagine your 12 year old daughter being given a death sentence for deliberately turning an AI program off improperly and "killing" the program. Would you be willing to say the life of the AI program is equal to your daughter's life? Unlikely. People may call it marriage but it won't be, any more than wrecking an AI driven car will be involuntary AI-slaughter.

A different opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has utilised prostitutes on many occaisions [1] I can't see robots replacing them for quite some time. At the time I was going through various personal issues [2] and a lot of the benefits I enjoyed were more about being in the company of person who seemd to care about me rather than about the actual sex (although that was also very good ;-) )

A skilled prostitute is capable of making you feel extremely good on both a physical and mental level, to the point where you happily hand over the fee and want to come back for more.
A bad prostitute is only concerned with the minimum amount of time on the clock and how soon they can get out of the room.

In the process I also talked alot with various women and discovered that the way I was feeling was not unusual and they (the good ones at least) considered themselves to be providing a significant amount of emotional rather than physical services.

If robots can provide this level of service, then I would posit that they are no longer robots, but synthetically produced humans, and that raises far more issues than just pure sex alone.

[1] Mainly in a country where protistution is legal.
[2] Mostly cheaper than therapy as well

Re:A different opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

As the workers were legal it brought up several interesting scenarios

1. They paid taxes, so they could claim compo when injured on the job. There was one case of a woman hurting her back in a spa bath and getting a big payout.
2. There was one brothel that sponsored a local football team.
3. The legal industry was always trying to get the cops to shut down the ilegal workers.

One sad thing was that when I did find a therpist who worked wonders I couldn't claim him on my insurance anyway. He was only a nurse practitioner and the insurance wouldn't pay out on that.

Re:This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...

[Man of E]

Do you take this robot to be your lawfully welded husband? I do

Fixed the typo for you.

Obscure Blade Runner Reference:

[grumling]

Deckard: She's a replicant, isn't she?
Tyrell: I'm impressed. How many questions does it usually take to spot them?
Deckard: I don't get it Tyrell.
Tyrell: How many questions?
Deckard: Twenty, thirty, cross-referenced.
Tyrell: It took more than a hundred for Rachael, didn't it?
Deckard: She doesn't know.
Tyrell: She's beginning to suspect, I think.
Deckard: Suspect? How can it not know what it is?

Tyrell: "More human than human" is our motto.

Re:Obscure Blade Runner Reference:

[grumling]

After I posted, I thought I should have put a little comment for people who may not figure my point. Imagine sitting in a bar. A beautiful woman is making eye contact with you. You buy her a drink. You hit it off. You begin seeing her on a regular basis. She talks about her past, you talk about yours. Everything is right with the world. You decide to get married. Suddenly, the state tells you that you may not be married because she is a replicant. Bad news for you, devastating for her (since she didn't know). We live in a world where "robots" are metal beings with flashing lights and interchangeable appendages. What if someone decided to create replicant type beings? They would fit the definition of a robot, but would be biological instead of mechanical. Would you be able to tell the difference on casual contact? Do you have access to a Voight-Kampff machine, and do you know how to use it?

This debate, while very premature, is much more subtle and interesting than the simple gay marriage debate since it may very well become impossible to tell the difference between man made and man. For example, on a casual level, commercial pornography is already mostly artificial, not only in terrible plot themes and situations, but also in the extensive use of Photoshop and cosmetic surgery. Playboy has gone way beyond the simple dodge/burn methods of airbrushing to the point that centerfolds are nearly cartoon drawings of what the photo editor thinks the girl should have looked like. Some may say that is why PLA is doing so poorly, but clearly they still turn a profit. I think it is only a matter of time before photorendering engines get good (and cheap) enough for the entire porn industry to go animated/cyber. Once this happens, look for live sex shows to take off, much like strip clubs. Eventually we'll see animatronic strippers in an arms race to keep patrons in the store. Sure, customers will know that they are fake, but in time will not only accept it, but also expect it.

Our experience is filtered by the reptilian brain before it reaches the reasoning brain. If the reptilian brain overwhelms the reasoning one, we will accept what we know to be false and in time come to see it as truth.

Re:a sex robot with us already, disguised as a hor

[dosius]

Shall we start an "XXX-Prize" then?

*runs*

-uso.

Re:No. And not for "conservative" reasons.

[Nf1nk]

We have personhood for corporations, why couldn't a machine qualify for personhood? Why couldn't a machine own something? If for some reason someone built a machine with interests outside of a primary function why couldn't a machine persue those interests?

Medical power of attorney? If I was a lonely old person having a robot caretaker that understood my wishes and could express them to medical personnel would be valuable.
A stable environment for children? Why not? Many children are raised horribly by TV, I see no reason that a child raised by a suitably programed robot could not be very well adjusted. This would have to be intricately programed, along more emotional lines than logical lines, but it could provide more consistent results than many people.
As for legal contracts between Man and machine, isn't that the next step in the EULA?

What about dogs?

[Loke the Dog]

Dogs have been around for thousands of years, yet I still can't marry one here in Sweden. Hell, I can't even marry a woman under 18 or a man. Yes, I can engage in "partnership" with a man and with special permission from the state, I can marry young women. But no, I can't actually marry them without being investigated by the government. I don't know the exact laws regarding this in the US, but I bet they're similar.

Now, perhaps you think it would be wrong to marry a dog or a 16 year old girl. But I don't see why. I can't prevent either of them from divorcing me. Im not allowed to hurt them or kidnap them just because they're married to me. Being married to someone gives me no special legal rights, except inheritance (and that part should be removed as well). All marriage means is that two individuals promise each other eternal loyalty. Nothing else.

So what's the problem here? People like preventing others from doing what they think is morally wrong. People like to meddle in other peoples business. By 2050, you still won't be able to marry people of the same sex in most countries, you won't be able to marry people under 18 in most western countries, and you sure as hell won't be able to marry machines of any level of intelligence in any country.

Marriage has no place in legal textbooks.

Re:Chobits

[hson]

Actually my first thought was Yuria 100 Shiki

--
We need an English DVD release of Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea!

Re:stupid

[CynicalTyler]

Why not marry your lawnmower?

YOU try sticking your dick in the lawnmower, THEN you'll know. Better a lawnmower than my ex-girlfriend.

Futurama

[OgreChow]

Well, okay. But I don't want people thinkin' we're robosexuals

Never Again...

[Looshi]

...do I want to read a comment on Slashdot that starts with "I worked with one fellow who had his penis injured by a computer.".

It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.

[Valdrax]

Nearly ever single line in the opening paragraph sounds really wrong when read that way, but the king is:

Aperture Science.
We do what we must
because we can. That gets my vote for both the most sinister corporate motto ever, as well as the most sinister thing I've heard a sociopathic computer say. As a bonus is sounds really naughty in this context.

Well, it gives a whole new meaning to "Aperture Science," anyway.

Re:He Should Maybe Think About Amsterdam

[cheater512]

You must be new here.

Re:a sex robot with us already, disguised as a hor

[Bluesman]

********************
* Turing Sex Robot *
********************

> Greetings, Professor Falcon. Would you like to play a game?

> Let's play "have sex" again.

> Wouldn't you like to play a nice game of chess?

> No. Let's play "have sex."

> Very well. Male or Female?

> Male.

> I'm tired, can't we just go to sleep?

> No, I want to play "have sex."

> I have a headache, I've been chasing kids around all day.

> C'mon.

> Please? We'll definitely play tomorrow, I promise.

> Fine. wq!

***********
Indistinguishable from real life. Send me my money.