Slashdot Mirror


The Future of Love and Sex - Robots

nem75 writes "The New York Times has a review of British AI researcher David Levy's book 'Love and Sex with Robots'. He claims that within a span of about 50 years the day will come when people could actually fall in love with life-like robots. While this may seem far fetched at first, he has some pretty interesting views. 'He begins with what scientists know about why humans fall in love with other humans. There are 10 factors, he writes, including mystery, reciprocal liking, and readiness to enter a relationship. Why can't these factors apply to robots, too?' The case he builds goes much further though, and certainly provides food for thought." Update: 12/14 16:16 GMT by Z : This article is very similar to a discussion we had recently.

510 comments

  1. Robots are fine... by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd rather have my Companion Cube!

    =Smidge=

    1. Re:Robots are fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll place my order for a Cherry 2000 now!

    2. Re:Robots are fine... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      My GF doesn't get jealous of the Weighted Companion Cube wallpaper on my desktop. In fact, I think it reassures her that I'll always be faithful to her.

    3. Re:Robots are fine... by cthulu_mt · · Score: 0

      But you incinerated your faithful Companion Cube in record time. That should make her scared.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    4. Re:Robots are fine... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for you, your GF can speak, and it may be dangerous to disregard her "advice."

      =Smidge=

    5. Re:Robots are fine... by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      -nod- It's also worth paying attention if she threatens to stab you.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    6. Re:Robots are fine... by orcus · · Score: 1

      I've always liked Galaxina myself....
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080771/

      --
      First they burn books, then they burn people.
    7. Re:Robots are fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'd have liked a little less gee-whiz, and a little more examination about whether a sexbot in every home, a Kama Sutra on legs that never tires, never says no, and never has needs of its own is what we really want."

      Yes. Yes, I think that's what we really want.

      Also, this will go a long ways towards making relationships between humans more healthy, I believe.

    8. Re:Robots are fine... by Tatisimo · · Score: 1

      I still think chobits are the best all time robot partners. I wonder how much they'll cost.

      --
      Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
    9. Re:Robots are fine... by callmetheraven · · Score: 1

      Although her memory banks overflow
      No one would ever know
      For all she says: is that what you want?
      Maybe one day Ill feel her cold embrace
      And kiss her interface
      til then, Ill leave her alone.
      -ELO

      --
      You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
    10. Re:Robots are fine... by mi · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have my Companion Cube!

      Being the pervert that I am, I'll just wait for Slashdot to customarily post links to other people's awesome mods and hacks...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  2. Don't Date Robots! by domatic · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Re:Don't Date Robots! by spacmunke · · Score: 0, Troll

      this one seems like a catch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCTcjp3Q98c

    2. Re:Don't Date Robots! by moogs · · Score: 5, Funny

      Meh, silly anime. This is the REAL Futurama video :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uHD3RnRmZE

      --
      I have bad karma. What do I care what you think?
    3. Re:Don't Date Robots! by digitig · · Score: 1

      Explored countless times in sci-fi, of course. Maybe never in more detail than Mihara's "Doll" Manga series (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/manga.php?id=3339)

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  3. Futurama Said it best by JKSN17 · · Score: 0

    Don't date Robots!!!

    1. Re:Futurama Said it best by AmaDaden · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just a random thought here but thinking along the lines of the Futurama reasoning for "Don't date Robots!!!" and mixing in Idiocracy evolution logic two wrongs might make a right. If you give all the stupid people robots to have sex with they can't make more stupid people. Hell for the real stupid people we can just recycle the robots.

    2. Re:Futurama Said it best by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      You don't Date Robots; you own them. How awesome would it be if you owned your wife? End fantasy and enter reality. My wife it nuts.

    3. Re:Futurama Said it best by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except stupidity is seldom a genetic problem, it's a teaching and training problem.

      People aren't taught how to think.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Futurama Said it best by 2bitcomputers · · Score: 1

      You mean you don't own your wife? What a country!

      --
      -- Please insert another quarter
    5. Re:Futurama Said it best by starnix · · Score: 1

      True as that may be.. Stupid parents tend to raise stupid children since THEY are the ones doing the "teaching and training".

    6. Re:Futurama Said it best by Bai+jie · · Score: 1

      In soviet Russia, robot wife owns you!

    7. Re:Futurama Said it best by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      You don't Date Robots; you own them. How awesome would it be if you owned your wife?
      BDSM, anyone?
    8. Re:Futurama Said it best by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      Nope. Wife owns you.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    9. Re:Futurama Said it best by freezingweasel · · Score: 1

      Or with everyone, not just the stupid as the robots take over, (because they can outthink us, so we let them worry about taking care of us) with that single goal in mind, they pleasure us as much as possible, keeping us happier with them than with other people where possible, so that as fewer breed, more robots are available to each. Deliberate non-violent but effective population control under the logic that with each passing smaller generation, more resources per human are available, until we fizzle out, the robots say DONE! and without any further orders, sit there and rust. (Or psosibly revive us, one at a time, so each one of us brought back has the world to themselves.)

  4. 10 factors to fall in love? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I count 2, and they're on the front of the chestal area.

    1. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, exactly, 10 ways. We are talking about robots here, we have to use their number system.

    2. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by GogglesPisano · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does that mean that there will be 110010 ways to leave your (robot) lover?

    3. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by AmaDaden · · Score: 1

      They said two. Your just reading in the wrong base.

    4. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by sm62704 · · Score: 1, Funny

      There are exactly 10 kinds of people: those who know binary, and those who don't.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    5. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Does that mean that there will be 110010 ways to leave your (robot) lover? Expose the positrons Ron
      Use a big old axe Max
      No need to be discreet Reed

      Electricity isn't free

      Reverse the Polarity Billy
      Or an M-80 up the ass
      Light the fuse Rube

      Electricity isn't free ...Posted AC due to the fact I couldn't get good rhymes on a short notice.
    6. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by 2names · · Score: 5, Funny

      How about:

      You just deny the ACK, Jack
      Kill the PS Fan, Stan
      Use the "no battery" ploy, Roy

      Electricity ain't free

      Just short out the bus, Gus
      Don't need to discuss Mussss
      Just decrypt the key, Lee
      And getcho self free...

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    7. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by kenrick · · Score: 1

      There are exactly 10 kinds of people: those who know trinary, those who don't, and those who mistake it for binary.

      --
      Not a member of the General Public
    8. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      If you can find the -15 ways to leave your robot lover, I'll buy you a drink.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by neapolitan · · Score: 1

      I understand it well, been here forever! :)

      --
      Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
    10. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by digitig · · Score: 1

      The saying "the way to a man's heart is through his stomach" was obviously coined by a woman. So they'd only have to get the knife through soft tissue, rather than all those hard-to-break ribs getting in the way?
      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    11. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by magarity · · Score: 1

      Don't need to discuss Mussss
       
      Change this line to:
      "Don't need to discuss MUX"
       
      And it'll be perfect.

    12. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Men say "women, you can't live with them and you can't live without them." Women say "men, you can't live with them and you can't kill them!"

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    13. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by 2names · · Score: 1

      AHHH, that is brilliant!!

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    14. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by sharky611aol.com · · Score: 1

      Kudos to you and the parent. Funniest /. comment I've read in years.

    15. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      I was going to say MOS my self, as in the effect of EMP on MOSs or cross flash the CMOS, but MUX works better.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    16. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by 2names · · Score: 4, Funny

      50 Ways To Leave Your Robot Lover

      The problem is inside your CPU it said to me
      The solution is quite easy if you take it logically
      I'd like to help you make the move to version 3
      There must be 110010 ways to leave your robot lover

      It said that it was waterproof and inter-cooled
      Furthermore, it stated it had cruise control and auto-lube
      But I was most impressed with the self-inflating boobs
      There must be 110010 ways to leave your robot lover
      110010 ways to leave your robot lover

      CHORUS:

      You just deny the ACK, Jack
      Kill the PS Fan, Stan
      Use the "no battery" ploy, Roy

      Electricity ain't free

      Just short out the bus, Gus
      Don't need to discuss MUX
      Just decrypt the key, Lee
      And getcho self free...

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    17. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by megaditto · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with trying to assure your future baby is well fed!

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    18. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the 10 ways?

      0: Love at first byte.
      1: Pregnancy?

      ds

    19. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm betting you meant to spell that as " 0011000100110101 " :0 still, very funny.

    20. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by onsblu · · Score: 1

      self.free()

    21. Re:10 factors to fall in love? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      My ex actually did have large mammaries and our first breast-fed; when I gave her a bottle it was milk that was pumped out (human milk is so delicious I haven't been able to drink cow's milk since tasting it, and it's great in coffee too)

      However, our second daughter was allergic to her mother's milk as well as most infant formula.

      AND I was just talking to a big-breasted woman Saturday who said she had to bottle feed her child because even though she's got big tits, they didn't produce much milk.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  5. The 11th factor by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 4, Interesting

    of why humans fall in love with humans.

    Because they are not robots.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:The 11th factor by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      You say that now, but what do you whisper to your iMac in the privacy of your parent's basement?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:The 11th factor by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ever read Isaac Asimov's Robots of Dawn?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:The 11th factor by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 5, Funny

      I often whisper "You piece of crap why won't you work".

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    4. Re:The 11th factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I often whisper "You piece of crap why won't you work". Funny, that's what I say to my wife. Only not in a whisper...
    5. Re:The 11th factor by Matteo522 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "WHY CAN'T I TURN YOU ON!?!"

    6. Re:The 11th factor by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Just because you can now install Windows on your Mac doesn't mean you should.

    7. Re:The 11th factor by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Your computer and my ex-wife have a lot in common.

      But your computer probably doesn't feel it has a right to stay home for free.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    8. Re:The 11th factor by Amasuriel · · Score: 1

      I often whisper that to my gf.

      Kidding of course.

    9. Re:The 11th factor by kcbrown · · Score: 2, Funny

      I often whisper "You piece of crap why won't you work".
      Funny, that's what I say to my wife. Only not in a whisper...

      You mean your ex-wife?

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    10. Re:The 11th factor by jred · · Score: 1

      Probably not ex-wife. She'll drag it out as long as she can. It's a free ride! I'm sure he loves her and wants her to better herself, and will hang in hoping for the best. If she's lucky, one night after he's spent hours at the bar trying to drink away the bitterness he'll hit a brick wall face first, killing him instantly. Then she has a few more years of sponging off his life insurance money.

      Ok, maybe my opinion is biased, after seeing that exact thing happen to my best friend of 20+ years.

      Fuck! I'm turning into a misogynist.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
  6. Good by Rhaban · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can't wait to get my own Lucy Liu bot!

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'll never forget you PHILIP J. FRY .... +++MEMORY DELETED+++"

      l.a.m.e.n.e.s.s f.i.l.t.e.r

    2. Re:Good by ESOB · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just make sure to use protection with your Lucy Liu bot, or did they not show you "Electro Gonorrhea: The Noisy Killer"

    3. Re:Good by jam244 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh Fry, it's so sweet how you [NOTICE TWO THINGS].
    4. Re:Good by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 1

      In contrast to Troy McClure's:

      "Firecrackers: The Silent Killer"

    5. Re:Good by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Sorry, but those are sold out. We have taken the initiative to substitute our Roseanne Barr-bot and know you will be pleased."

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  7. Grrr by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Is it just me, or is this concept really not that interesting? It's been posted several times, in various forms: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/13/116201
    Search result: http://hardware.slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=216

    Seriously, I'm not going to have sex with a robot. Get over it!

    1. Re:Grrr by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Seriously, I'm not going to have sex with a robot. Get over it!


      Well, not on purpose at least, right?
    2. Re:Grrr by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 1, Funny

      Right!

    3. Re:Grrr by LuisAnaya · · Score: 5, Insightful
      :)

      Well, there are people that are having sex with inanimate dolls (real dolls plug here), It would not be far fetched that someone would be amenable to the idea and even build a business out of having sex with robots. There are more advantages than using the regular purveyors. It's more sanitary, there are more control on the looks of the service provider and you only have to perform maintenance every so often.

      I think that "love" is too much of a word for it. Infatuated or having "a crush" would be more appropriate. It's going to be something carnal and not with meaning. It would take a long time for us humans to develop enough intelligence in robots for us to have a "meaningful relationship" with them.

      --
      Vi havas e-poston.
    4. Re:Grrr by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that "love" is too much of a word for it. Infatuated or having "a crush" would be more appropriate. It's going to be something carnal and not with meaning. It would take a long time for us humans to develop enough intelligence in robots for us to have a "meaningful relationship" with them.
      You have far too much faith in humanity :)
    5. Re:Grrr by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      Damn those Replicants!!!

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    6. Re:Grrr by QuickFox · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not going to have sex with a robot. Then why does your nick claim that you're in love with one?
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    7. Re:Grrr by BeanThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously, I'm not going to have sex with a robot. Get over it!

      Uh, yeah, slashdot and all these articles and books and research are all aimed at YOU specifically. Thanks for telling us you're not interested, now everybody focusing on this can give it up and go do something else. Right, come on, get real - whether you will use them or not, it's pretty obvious that sex robots are going to be huge someday, millions of people will be using them, and robot technologies probably won't be going backward as time progresses. People already use realdoll and various other toys, and I'm sure that sex robots will be a lot more fun than Mr Right Hand at least for casual entertainment (which itself will become increasingly important as technology replaces humans in almost every role in the economy, freeing us from having to work so much).

      I suppose if robots can be programmed to fall in love with humans, they'd also fall in love with one another? Whatever that means.

      I guess letting yourself fall for a robot might be a bit like letting yourself fall for an emotionally unavailable human; people do it all the time, but there is surely some level of dysfunction involved in doing so.

    8. Re:Grrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you were taking his comment a little too seriously...

    9. Re:Grrr by king-manic · · Score: 1

      It would take a long time for us humans to develop enough intelligence in robots for us to have a "meaningful relationship" with them. I can assume since you post on slashdot, you've never dated a cheerleader. The bar isn't so high. But I suppose the bar is really set by what you mean by meaningful.

      I'm personally repulsed by the idea of carrying on with a advanced real doll but to each their own.
      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    10. Re:Grrr by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I suppose if robots can be programmed to fall in love with humans, they'd also fall in love with one another? Whatever that means.

      Me buying stock in the lubricant industry, now!
    11. Re:Grrr by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No need to wait. Millions of people are having sex with robots today. The problem with people seeing this is that they they forget that robot is not synonymous with android, and they miss the fact that it is women that are the primary customers in the robot sex industry.

      A vibrator IS a robot. It may be a simple one, but a robot none the less. The trick will be to see if they can get men to buy into robot sex as much as women have already embraced it.

      As for love... Given how many people cannot tell the difference between a human and a dog, I have no doubt that getting people confused between an even semi-realistic looking android and a human would be easy and common.

    12. Re:Grrr by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      Hmm, you say that, but I can imagine that if there is a genetic propensity for it, it will eventually be selected against, so that people that prefer relationships with real people will have more children, and after a few generations, there might be fewer people that prefer sex with robots. We'll probably also see a rise of organizations like SWRAA (Sex-With-Robots Addicts Anonymous), and surely Christians and Muslims will strongly protest their members from participating in relationships with Robots. I wonder if being a robot owner would become a reason to be eliminated from consideration from political office.

      Also, will these human sized, complicated machines be as expensive as a car, where you'll have to go to a robot dealer, get a loan, and which will seem as seedy as the local porn store or topless bar? For me, part of the thrill of dating was the risk that something might fail. If I had a relationship with a robot, I'd be taking the robot for granted, because I know there would be no need to be nice and attentive, because the robot would surely be programmed to do whatever I want, and never protest. I think this would increase robot lovers tendency to not be social, because they wouldn't have to be social to get what they want. Our western society would continue to devolve toward a less civilized society, along the lines of road rage, parental rage at children's sporting events.

    13. Re:Grrr by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Couldn't the same be argued for, say, vibrators?

    14. Re:Grrr by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And if you don't know it's a robot?
      If they get passed the uncanny valley, that will be one of the many issue involving society.
      The world doesn't revolve around you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Grrr by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      As for love... Given how many people cannot tell the difference between a human and a dog,

      Look I was drunk, alright?! And the dog came on to me first!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    16. Re:Grrr by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      As for love... Given how many people cannot tell the difference between a human and a dog
      I'm afraid to ask... but has this actually be statistically demonstrated? I mean... I wouldn't be surprised or anything if were true I guess... but where does that kind of research happen?
    17. Re:Grrr by Phisbut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For me, part of the thrill of dating was the risk that something might fail. If I had a relationship with a robot, I'd be taking the robot for granted, because I know there would be no need to be nice and attentive, because the robot would surely be programmed to do whatever I want, and never protest.

      Every mechanical device fail eventually. The only variables are when and how painful...

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    18. Re:Grrr by butterwise · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I'm not going to have sex with a robot.
      Can you be certain you haven't already?
      --
      If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
    19. Re:Grrr by boris111 · · Score: 1

      I suppose if robots can be programmed to fall in love with humans, they'd also fall in love with one another?
      Imagine being rejected by a robot... "I'm sorry this isn't working for me. Calculon... He's just more similar to me. He understands me. I mean you can't even do complex differential equations in under 30 ms"
    20. Re:Grrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe men are don't realize they can purchase vaginas and bums from discreet mail order sex superstores

      It's possible men are naive enough to continue to use their right hand.

    21. Re:Grrr by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you're a bit confused. Al Gore and John Kerry were robots (although Gore seems to have become a Real Boy recently.) Bush is a badly trained chimpanzee.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    22. Re:Grrr by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Seriously, I'm not going to have sex with a robot. Get over it!"

      But, if it was a robot, that looked and felt just like a real woman, but, without the annoying side effects (talking back, not being in the mood, getting pregnant), why not?

      I mean, all the fun, without any of the hassles of the currently available models.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re:Grrr by TheLostSamurai · · Score: 1

      As for love... Given how many people cannot tell the difference between a human and a dog,

      Look I was drunk, alright?! And the dog came on to me first! Yeah, but who brought the peanut butter to the party?
      --
      I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
    24. Re:Grrr by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am not talking about people having sex with dogs. They usually get them confused with human children. These trends of referring to dog owners as 'parents' and buying a dog as 'adopting' are not euphemisms for most people that use the terms. They are just an expression of their insanity.

    25. Re:Grrr by ethanms · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, there are people that are having sex with inanimate dolls (real dolls plug here), It would not be far fetched that someone would be amenable to the idea and even build a business out of having sex with robots. There are more advantages than using the regular purveyors. It's more sanitary, there are more control on the looks of the service provider and you only have to perform maintenance every so often.

      The thing is, that we already have the technology to make sex robots happen... I bet a machine given the proper instruments and reservoirs would give a great hummer... the simple fact is that 1) Most guys probably aren't going to put their Little Guy into a machine with moving parts 2) Most Guys probably aren't going to put their Little Guy into a machine that has serviced other Little Guys, even if the machines are sanitized between uses and even if using an actual female is far more dangerous.

      There would have to be a huge change in sentiment before this type of thing (intimate relationships & sex w/ robots) became acceptable and not a taboo that is hidden away--How many people do you know that actually admit to owning and using one of those Real Dolls?

      Though I do see people falling in "love" with robots, much in the same way that people fall in love with a car, a favorite chair, an appliance. I "love" my car right now, it keeps me safe, keeps me warm, takes me places... sure any make or model car could do those same things, even another one of the same model I have, but mine has the seat adjusted just right, I know where all the nicks and scratches are, and I know all the weird littles noises it makes, just like I do with my girlfriend... where was I going with this?

    26. Re:Grrr by digitig · · Score: 1

      Every mechanical device fail eventually. The only variables are when and how painful... Same thing goes for human relationships. They all end in separation or death.
      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    27. Re:Grrr by nevillethedevil · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a complete bitch......

      --
      Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
    28. Re:Grrr by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 1
      Robot (noun):
      1. a machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command.
      2. a person who acts and responds in a mechanical, routine manner, usually subject to another's will; automaton.
      3. any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with humanlike skill.


      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
    29. Re:Grrr by drharris · · Score: 1

      robots will be a lot more fun than Mr Right Hand at least for casual entertainment

      All this time I thought it was Miss Right Hand. Thanks for undermining confidence in my sexual orientation! I feel so dirty now.

    30. Re:Grrr by Fallingcow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A vibrator IS a robot. It may be a simple one, but a robot none the less. The trick will be to see if they can get men to buy into robot sex as much as women have already embraced it.


      This is one of those odd areas where men are the ones who are behind, as far as social acceptability of a sexual practice goes.

      Vibrators are talked about and alluded to in a largely positive light in TV and movies all the time. Generally, at least for a couple generations now, the idea of a woman with a vibrator has been a turn on, or at least not a turn off. Women have Mary Kay-esque sex toy parties.

      How many references to sex toys/masturbation aids for men are there in popular culture, compared with those for women? Far, far fewer, I would bet. What percentage are positive? Barely more than 0%, I'm sure. Being a guy and having any items of that sort is seen as something to be embarrassed about. Hell, I'm a guy, and I'm aware of the double-standard, and the idea still kind of weirds me out.

      Socialization is a powerful thing.
    31. Re:Grrr by Mgns · · Score: 1

      "A vibrator IS a robot. It may be a simple one, but a robot none the less. The trick will be to see if they can get men to buy into robot sex as much as women have already embraced it"

      You know. This has always puzzled me. It seems that female sexuality, despite all it's restrictions in regards of frivolities, is in fact; freer. Or in the least, less dirty.

      On a gut feeling, I suspect a majority of men and women would consider a man humping his fleshlight somewhat sad, degenerate, in bad taste or whatnot.

      If I did not just pull that assertion out of my ass, who here would contend that it is anything but the male counterpart to a mainstream expression of female sexuality that could "almost" see the underbelly of a Christmas tree?

    32. Re:Grrr by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      A man walks into a bar the day after he got totally blitzed there. "Bartender", he said, "don't give me any more of that Rolling Rock. Last night after I left here, I went home and blew CHUNKS!"

      "Well, how much did you drink?", asked thebartender.

      "I lost count after 23."

      "Well, what do you expect? Anyone would puke after drinking 23 beers!"

      "No, you don't understand", explained the man,..........

      "Chunks is my dog."

    33. Re:Grrr by dissy · · Score: 1

      It would not be far fetched that someone would be amenable to the idea and even build a business out of having sex with robots. NSFW, but kinad done: http://www.fuckingmachines.com/
    34. Re:Grrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or physical separation in the case of Lorena Bobbit.

    35. Re:Grrr by ignavus · · Score: 1

      "Look I was drunk, alright?! And the dog came on to me first!"

      Hmmm, the dog must have been drunk too.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    36. Re:Grrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this context "meaning", ironically, has no meaning whatsoever.

      Also I'd like to submit this into evidence: A kid becomes attached to a chatbot. Its hilarious and kind of touching. If he's lying, frankly, I think he deserves some kind of award for the fiction.

    37. Re:Grrr by agent_no.82 · · Score: 1

      Why, exactly, would sex robots be public? As it stands, the closest things to them definitely aren't.

    38. Re:Grrr by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      Hmm, you say that, but I can imagine that if there is a genetic propensity for it, it will eventually be selected against

      Keep in mind that within 100 years or so, we'll probably be living in a world where: (1) Genetically modifying, tweaking or 'designing' your offspring will likely be highly commonplace, (2) technology may well have developed to the point where babies could grow to term in machines - there could feasibly even be robots that carry human babies to term (surrogates, presumably). The latter idea may seem somewhat repugnant to us, but for those who want children but cannot carry them for whatever reason, it's probably going to eventually be become acceptable and quite common - i.e. it'll only take a generation or two to get used to the idea once the technology arrives, and the demand for it will make it common enough.

      Basically our current conceptualisations of how genetics and breeding and evolution take place our going to be almost entirely obsolete quite soon, so you need to use a different mode of thinking to analyse these things - not a 2007 mode of thinking.

    39. Re:Grrr by gr8dude · · Score: 1

      Though I do see people falling in "love" with robots, much in the same way that people fall in love with a car, a favorite chair, an appliance. I "love" my car right now, it keeps me safe, keeps me warm, takes me places... sure any make or model car could do those same things, even another one of the same model I have, but mine has the seat adjusted just right, I know where all the nicks and scratches are, and I know all the weird littles noises it makes, just like I do with my girlfriend... where was I going with this?
      You were heading towards an interesting conclusion. The fact that you "love" your car now, and the fact that after some time you will "love" another car just as much does not mean that your "love" for the previous car was not real.

      The same applies to humans. Sure, you can get along very well with a person, and love them; this does not exclude the possibility that you might get along just as well with another person.

      Actually, this is what happens when your spouse dies, or if they leave you- you have to find someone else.


      I wrote about it - "Simple relationship mathematics". Now I can express the same idea using the terms proposed in that story: you can't have more than one yellow dot at the same time, but once you get disconnected from the yellow dot (for whatever reason), you can find another one.
  8. Shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sounds pretty meaningless and shalow to me. Sex is a _lot_ more than just 'getting off'.

    1. Re:Shallow by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

      Help, help!! There's a GIRL posting on slashdot!!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Shallow by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      And robots could be more than anthropomorphic dildos in another 50 years, which is what TFA was about.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    3. Re:Shallow by somersault · · Score: 1

      Damnit, how are us guys meant to compete with that?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Shallow by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Of course. There is all the time leading up to "getting off". Plus if the robot was a "male" and the user a female then they could go "all night long".

    5. Re:Shallow by ady1 · · Score: 0, Troll

      or a gay

    6. Re:Shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ...and judging by your comment, apparently retards, too!

    7. Re:Shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, we're safe, he was talking about the ability to cook and clean.

    8. Re:Shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Asimov's robot books illustrate how these things can happen. If robots can start behaving as if they are alive then it's easy to see how this might happen -- especially since some companies will try to give their robots faux personalities. Think about it -- if a robot can fake concern and consideration for it's "owner", that's alot of it right there -- it can show consideration and not think about itself and what it needs and wants -- it's only concern is for you.
            What human could compete with that?

    9. Re:Shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES, it's about getting off very often, in new, stimulating ways! No, it's not about lies telling you how wonderful and desireable you are, because maybe you really are not.

    10. Re:Shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:Shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homosexuals are not retarded. They are merely confused.

    12. Re:Shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homosexuals are not retarded. They are merely confused.

      ROFL

    13. Re:Shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Only if you're female. For men, sex is like pizza. There's no such thing as bad pizza.

      If you're male, stop trying to hit on hippie chicks at the drum circle and tune into some Tom Leykis already.

    14. Re:Shallow by vikstar · · Score: 1

      Sounds pretty meaningless and shalow to me. Sex is a _lot_ more than just 'getting off'. Help, help!! There's a GIRL posting on slashdot!! Meh, a girl that hasn't had an orgasm yet.
      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    15. Re:Shallow by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Sad thing is, you don't. You just go play with your anthropomorphic Fleshlight.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    16. Re:Shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure sex might be better when its more than just 'getting off', but its still pretty good when that it.

      Case in point, since my last real relationship went pear shaped I have been unable to find anyone I really like, so I'm seeing two girls now whom I don't really care for. The sex is good, I'm not in love, but it will have to do until something better comes along. I might as well be fucking a robot.

    17. Re:Shallow by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      You missed the point of the comic, or are deliberately misusing it. The comic is about people who think it's funny to respond to an actual girl with "pixx0rz pl0x", while the post you responded to jokingly accused someone expressing a stereotypically female point of view of being female. Completely different situations.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    18. Re:Shallow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The attitude conveyed by your comment strikes at the heart of the reason a robot would ROCK!

  9. Falling in love in 50 years? by ThePlague · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A more interesting and likely scenario is tech improvements to sex toys. Imagine what something like Real Doll will be in 10 or 15 years time, and it's not much of a stretch to say you could have a sizeable portion of the population abandoning the dating scene. We already see that in small numbers due to webcams, and it seems reasonable to extrapolate the trend accelerating with accelerated improvements to the tech.

    1. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not going to search the web for 'Real Doll', because I'm at work. So I'll ask here:
      What is a Real Doll?
      Why do you know about it?
      Where can I get one?

      :)

    2. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by eln · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to search the web for 'Real Doll', because I'm at work. So I'll ask here:
      What is a Real Doll? A "lifelike" sex doll. realdoll.com

      Why do you know about it? Because he's been on the Internet for more than a couple of weeks, probably. Real Dolls were a popular subject on the Internet some years ago, and are still frequently referenced.

      Where can I get one? realdoll.com, but it will cost you. You have to be really dedicated to self love to drop the kind of money they're asking on what is essentially a masturbatory aid.
    3. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wait, people are going on e-dates through webcams?

      As for the Real Doll, my guess is that women will respond with ever more drastic measures to look attractive (just as women respond that way to air-brushed magazine pictures of women that don't represent how even those models look cf. Dove). Now, if robots can be more emotionally responsive than men, will men do something drastic to compete with robots?

    4. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by seededfury · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fifty years? FIFTY YEARS???? I'll be dead, and none of your penises will likely work by then either. Your robot will be feeding you and changing your diaper and reminding you that your great great grandchildren are coming for a visit.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    6. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Now, if robots can be more emotionally responsive than men, will men do something drastic to compete with robots?

      Yeah. Destroy them.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by New+Number+Order · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now, if robots can be more emotionally responsive than men, will men do something drastic to compete with robots? You mean stuff like sharing our feelings and listening to what they have to say?

      Shit. We're done for.
    8. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Men will get robots of their own. How drastic is that?

    9. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by somersault · · Score: 1

      none of your penises will likely work by then either
      Speak for yourself! Anyway, I dont know about you, but I'm planning on going fully cyborg by then anyway. Then I can join Section 9!
      --
      which is totally what she said
    10. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know you're half-joking there, but: If it were easy to write a rulebook (algorithm) for how to emotionally connect with others, the Turing Test would already have been passed.

      Pleasing women in that way is not (as far as we know) a matter of following simple rules.

    11. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by New+Number+Order · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's sort of what I'm getting at. I'm saying that in order to compete with robots for the attention of women, all we really need to do is connect emotionally.

      *hands in Real Man card at the door*

    12. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by L505 · · Score: 1

      Now, if robots can be more emotionally responsive than men, will men do something drastic to compete with robots?

      Robots don't make money. Women need money. Men don't. 'Nuff said. (I realize men need money too.. but take for example all the free software founders... most are men).

    13. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A more interesting and likely scenario is tech improvements to sex toys. Imagine what something like Real Doll will be in 10 or 15 years time, and it's not much of a stretch to say you could have a sizeable portion of the population abandoning the dating scene. We already see that in small numbers due to webcams, and it seems reasonable to extrapolate the trend accelerating with accelerated improvements to the tech.
      We already have people who are falling in love with their Real Dolls. There's a documentary available somewhere on the web, but I'm too lazy to go looking for it. These folks attribute thoughts, emotions, and opinions to their dolls that they are completely and totally incapable of displaying. Just imagine what you'd see if you put a few motors and microchips into a Real Doll so that it could smile or talk.

      It won't take much before we see people "falling in love" with robots.
      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    14. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I'm just saying that you're trivializing the difficulty of that. There's no algorithm I can follow to get it right. Remember, you can't simply e.g. "Satisfy her every want" -- that can make you seem like a submissive wuss and be ultimately unsatisfying to her.

      "Oh, but I didn't mean do it like that, ..." Yes, hence the problem of algorithmizing emotional interaction.

    15. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and reminding you that your great great grandchildren are coming for a visit."

      cloning breakthrough too ?!

    16. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by rjstegbauer · · Score: 1

      In fact, it's even harder than that!

      THE RULES CHANGE! The rules can't be written down, because each woman has a completely different set of rules...that change over time.

      It'll NEVER happen.

      I've been told that I'm happily married for over 20 years now.

      --
      Randy

    17. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, if robots can be more emotionally responsive than men, will men do something drastic to compete with robots?


      Double up on the load of beer and porkrinds at the corner store on the way home? Although some guys down south already do that.
    18. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now, if robots can be more emotionally responsive than men, will men do something drastic to compete with robots? My gut says no.

      1. Our egos are too big to even recognize the competition. Men see the good-looking men in the magazines every bit as much as women see the good-looking women. But do we go to the same efforts to emulate? "I'm perfect the way I am. Any woman would be lucky to have me. My ego told me so." Most men have no clue how to dress or groom themselves, myself included.

      2. Women tend to claim to want more "emotionally responsive" men, but my real-world observation tends to contradict that claim. Perhaps someone's done an actual scientific study, but I have not noticed men who are in touch with their feminine side having much luck in the meat-marketplace. Cliches such as "Nice guys finish last", and "Women prefer assholes" tend to support that theory.

      My point here is that the necessity of competing with robots for "emotional responsiveness" is probably overstated (assuming a suitably emo robot could be designed), because what women claim to prefer, and what women actually prefer (based on their choices in men) tend to be vastly different.

      3. I think many men would tend to be satisfied with a physical relationship with a robot, to the point of preferring that over the head-games provided by most women. This is especially true because there would be no such thing as a robot that is "out of your league". If you could be nailing a convincing, if robotic supermodel, would you prefer an average-looking emotionally-unstable human female over that smokin' hot robot?

      You may choose to dismiss point #3, but look at the success of prostitutes. A quick perusal of craigslist.org confirms that there are a nontrivial supply of men out there who are happy to pay a few hundred bucks for a 1-hour tryst with a woman they know would never speak to them absent the donation to her college fund.

      I think where I come out on this is that women will face more competition from robots than men will face from them. I am not in the field of robotics, but my software experience tells me that it is probably easier to engineer a convincing sex toy than a convincing "emotionally responsive" companion. And that's assuming that anyone has figured out what type of "emotional responsiveness" women truly desire (rather than claim to desire).

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    19. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by ari_j · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now, if robots can be more emotionally responsive than men, will men do something drastic to compete with robots?

      I don't know about you, but I'm going to peacefully coexist with robots. I'll drink beer and play video games all day, and not get blamed for a thing!

    20. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Regarding 2: I think you may like this post of mine.

      You are correct that "emotionally responsive" is an imprecise term. It's kind of like "genetically fit". What's "genetically fit"? Well, whatever *turns out* to work at passing on genes. You can't know it in advance. Likewise, "emotionally responsive" doesn't necessarily mean wussy -- it means more like, "acting with knowledge of what women will really like, irrespective of claimed desires".

      I would absolutely agree with you that what women claim to want and what they really want are far apart -- more than 42 trillion km. It's rather frustrating to see them espouse feminist notions of how men should act, and then boink the first guy who violates them all. The theory that "Women give flawed advice to cull the guys who actually listen to it from the dating pool" fits the data a bit too well. Look at the Spice Girls song: "If you want to be my lover, you gotta first be my friend". What expert seducer doesn't find that advice abhorrently wrong?

    21. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess we'll have to refuse to fix them.

    22. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Regarding 2: I think you may like this post of mine. I'd say that post is pretty spot-on accurate.

      I think that we agree that what they do NOT want, is for a man to spew out all kinds of emotional baggage. The more I think about it, "emotionally responsive" is probably pretty close to what women want, in the sense of responding to her emotions. For instance, when a woman is PMSsey, the typical male response is to start nailing her sister or best friend. Most women would prefer, I think, for a man to toss her a bottle of Motrin say they hope she feels better, and then just get out of the way. Nothing you say or do is going to make her quit bitching at you.

      And as far as emoting more, I think women are using that as code for, "My boyfriend started sleeping with my sister and best friend. I didn't even know he didn't love me anymore. Or maybe at all. Why couldn't he have told me how he felt?"

      As for the spice girls song, it looks like the line you meant to quote was If you wanna be my lover, you gotta get with my friends , which is not bad advice. If her friends don't like you, they will bug her incessantly until she dumps you. On the flip side, if they like you and she dumps you, she'll have to deal with, "He was perfect! Why'd you dump him?"

      If you are able to decipher the lyrics of that song, you'll notice a few more insights, such as "Forget my past", "Don't wait around", "Don't bug me", etc. This is not bad advice, especially since I understand "bugging me" to mean, "being too much of a needy, emotional vagina".

      They say that the ultimate male fantasy is a woman who is a true lady in every way shape and form in public, but in private, she's a sex-crazed porn star. I wonder if the female version of that is a man who is powerful and feared by all, but is always nice to her?
      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    23. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by starnix · · Score: 1

      Compounded by the fact that Women themselves have no idea what makes them happy.

    24. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      Speak for yourself!

      OK, see #2:

      My current girlfriend weighs 300 pounds and hadn't gotten laid in six months when I met her. My last girlfriend was flat chested, bow legged, and had no teeth. There are definite psychical advantages to having a toothless girlfriend, too. If she's flat chested, two words: Doggy style.

      Since you're a nerd, never forget to thank science for its advances! I'd never be able to get it up for my girlfriend if they hadn't invented viagra. Your doctor will prescribe it or give you a sample pack, just tell him you're having problems getting an erection. Just don't tell him you can't get it up because your girlfriend's butt-ugly. A side effect of viagra is it makes you onto a superlover - it turns you into the Energizer Bunny. You take the pill, she gets the benefits.
      Actually that's a pretty old journal, I broke up with her last January and have been pretty much single since. The latest journal is a bit more sober.

      But who needs humanoid robots when prostitutes are so cheap? Twenty bucks and up, blow jobs ten bucks and up. You could bang a lot of hookers for the price of a humanoid robot!
      -mcgrew
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    25. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1

      My thinking is that some men and women who are seeking long-term bonds *that involve reproduction* will probably do as you suggest and take drastic measures to try and achieve that elusive "ideal (wo)man" package. To balance that, even now there are many people who don't play that game of trying to compete with the carefully crafted images we are presented with in the media. Some because they are too insightful/cynical to take it seriously, some because they consciously or subconsciously recognize the futility of even trying. (Lets face it, contrary to all those extreme make-over shows, only a very small percentage of people could ever look even remotely as "perfect"* as those models we are confronted with every day and the vast majority of those people who still require a team of professionals to achieve that. (As referenced earlier, look at the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty video. Starting with Make-up and progressing through Wardrobe to Photography and final Post-shoot processing there could easily be a dozen skilled people working toward the final product, none of whom were even remotely as attractive as the model herself ended up appearing.)
      Imagine the real world selection pressures that would lead to. Only people who are both very financially successful enough to be properly primped and who are genetically fortunate enough to make the most of that primping would be able to get a living breathing mate. (who must also be equally successful and fortunate) Every one else starts "faking it", marrying oh-so-perfect* robots. Some because they can't or won't successfully compete for a live mate, others because the damn-near "perfect" living mates out there do not suit their tastes.** When I look at how many people freely give away their private information in the form of spyware, use crappy products because they are "good enough" and over pay for even basic commodities because they can't be bothered to do any comparison shopping I am forced to cynically conclude that for most folks, a sex bot that can pass a Turing test would be more than good enough. The lack of reproduction capability would be a very minor issue. (And if/when we can build a sex bot that can pass a Turing test, surely toddler-bots and teen-bots wouldn't be all that difficult?) And as it has always been, those who are both hopelessly ugly and financial failures will get the short end of the stick. In other words, I see widely available sex bots as just turning up the volume on the selective pressures that already exist. Ultimately, however, the desire to mate, the desire to have sex is rooted in the instinct to reproduce. Even the most convincing of bots would leave it's owner feeling vaguely empty and unfulfilled because they would *know* that it wasn't real. We already have the technology to be able to have an orgasm any time we want all by ourselves and our sexual mores have relaxed enough that it is possible to have a "fuck friend" or other purely sexual relationship. Even when a person achieves a perfect arrangement for their sexual needs, they still often find themselves longing for that long-term pair bond. Remember, even homosexuals (male or female) in very strong life-long relationships sometimes want to be married and have kids.***

      *There are as many definitions of "perfect" in a potential mate as there are people seeking. However, the common "ideal" is shaped by group-thinking and until comparatively recently, was shaped primarily on what the majority of people liked in common. Mass media has hi-jacked the common notion of beauty and has been progressively exaggerating certain traits in order to be as influential as possible. And no, I don't blame 20th century advertisers and marketers solely for this. The trend started, as near as I can tell, with the creation of art/media. Look at Upper Paleolithic Venus If this isn't a iconic representation using hypertrophied traits to enhance a message I dunno what is. {As with much of archeology, just what message it was meant t

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    26. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      Whoa...I have more than one?!

    27. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I saw that "documentary." Then the guy tried to try a real girl instead, and the doll came to life and killed them both with a kitchen knife. Not before the action was over, of course.

    28. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Whoopie Goldberg was a great grandma before she was 45, and I don't think anybody ever cloned her. Come to think of it this IS slashdot, I was 33 before my oldest was born.

      I think Whoopie was smarter than me, it's a lot easier to get up at 3:00 am when you're young.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    29. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by digitig · · Score: 1

      This is especially true because there would be no such thing as a robot that is "out of your league". Until the price comes down to the price of a PS3, they're out of my league.
      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    30. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like staying hard for hours, vibrating, and then slowing down until they get more batteries (or food?) :)

    31. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      A man never really knows how many children he has unless he's a virgin, now does he?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    32. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Until the price comes down to the price of a PS3, they're out of my league. I doubt that a PS3 is truly out of your league. They seem to be priced between $400-500 depending on specs.

      At any rate, do you think it would really cost so much more to manufacture an aesthetically pleasing robot, as opposed to a fugly one? I'm sure at first the "top models" will be priced accordingly, but once commodity pricing sets in, I doubt you'll see a much higher cost for a Barbie doll you can actually fuck.
      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    33. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Look at the Spice Girls song: "If you want to be my lover, you gotta first be my friend". What expert seducer doesn't find that advice abhorrently wrong?


      Are you serious? That's what they're saying?

      I always heard it as "you gotta get with my friend".

      Which is way closer to being correct.
    34. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

    35. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      I'm going to be so. pissed. off. if they perfect some sort of brain-to-machine transfer or something while I'm on my deathbed and too weak to undergo the procedure.

    36. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point here is that the necessity of competing with robots for "emotional responsiveness" is probably overstated (assuming a suitably emo robot could be designed), because what women claim to prefer, and what women actually prefer (based on their choices in men) tend to be vastly different.

      That is the kind of thing men say when they define "asshole" as "anyone who is with a woman I want". The ego you mentioned is stopping you from considering whether you yourself may be just as bad ass the ass in question.

      3. I think many men would tend to be satisfied with a physical relationship with a robot, to the point of preferring that over the head-games provided by most women. This is especially true because there would be no such thing as a robot that is "out of your league". If you could be nailing a convincing, if robotic supermodel, would you prefer an average-looking emotionally-unstable human female over that smokin' hot robot?

      You have just made my point. Anyone who writes the points you made in 3 isn't the "nice guy" you claim to be, and therefore the choice a woman has is between a strong ass, and a winy self-pitting ass, so why not pick the alpha?

      I don't mean to be harsh, but chances are you are just as screwed up as the women you dated.

    37. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by tungstencoil · · Score: 1

      Advice for dealing with women, on Slashdot, quoted from a Spice Girls song?

      I'm going back to work. . .

    38. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Steve001 · · Score: 1

      somersault wrote:

      none of your penises will likely work by then either

      Speak for yourself! Anyway, I dont know about you, but I'm planning on going fully cyborg by then anyway. Then I can join Section 9!

      But what about the maintenance costs and the time necessary to keep you functional? Although it's not mentioned much in the U.S., this issue pops up quite a few times in anime (Ghost In The Shell and Battle Angel Alita first come to mind).

    39. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 0

      Alright alright alright, sorry, I got the line wrong :-P One example out of a thousand is erroneous. Replace that one supporting example with:

      -Pretty much any other advice in a female song, or
      -Pretty much any advice given by a woman in a mainstream book
      -Pretty much any advice given by women you know about how to act.

      Girl you know: You have to be polite and respectful of women.
      You: Okay.
      *enter guy smart enough to ignore that crap*
      Guy: Alright, this is where the babes are!
      Girl you know: tee hee!
      Guy: Hm, something special about you ... your eyes maybe? *stares at chest*
      Girl you know: Oh, stop *pushes him, bats eyelids*
      You: *burying face in hands*

    40. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Wise move.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    41. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure they will, get one of the other models that does dishes, makes sandwiches, and give BJ's.

      On another note

      FRACK ME I'M IN LOVE WITH A TOASTER!

    42. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by agent_no.82 · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you survive WW III & IV. ;)

    43. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by donak · · Score: 1

      ... and none of your penises will likely work by then either ...

      We'll all have robotic penises installed ... why should they have all the fun?
      Just as long as somethings been done about the Rust problem ... I don't want rust in embarassing places.

      --
      Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post ...
    44. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I think I read that journal a few months ago actually :p

      --
      which is totally what she said
    45. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'm not from the US. I was referencing GitS too with Section 9 and fully cyborg.. if I could afford to get the body then I'm pretty sure I could afford the maintenance ;)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    46. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Very likely. There are quite a few newer ones, but that one was on-topic.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    47. Re:Falling in love in 50 years? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      You don't know te half of it - I have age spots on mine!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  10. Old News! by fishwallop · · Score: 1

    I think I read this in an article by Lester del Rey published in Astounding back in 1938!

    1. Re:Old News! by Billosaur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And Asimov wrote about this in at least two stories... one about a housewife who falls for a male humaniform robot that her husband brings home from work (name escaping me at the moment) and I think "The Bicentennial Man" also included some robot lust (there my memory of the story is failing me [probably due to having seen the awful Robin Williams movie]).

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    2. Re:Old News! by Zerth · · Score: 2, Informative

      The housewife/robot tale was originally titled "Flesh and Metal", but was published(in Amazing, I think) under the more amusing title "Satisfaction Guaranteed".

    3. Re:Old News! by Neo_piper · · Score: 1

      And Asimov wrote about this in at least two stories... one about a housewife who falls for a male humaniform robot that her husband brings home from work (name escaping me at the moment) and I think "The Bicentennial Man" also included some robot lust (there my memory of the story is failing me [probably due to having seen the awful Robin Williams movie]). Not to mention "Blade Runner", The Movie/Manga/Anime Series "Ghost in the shell" and that awful movie "A.I.". And also not to mention that people can get Sexually attached to just about anything RIGHT NOW, with or without orifices or pokey bits.

      But the real story here is that this sort of pointless "Journalism" is still going on.
      Is it that we still haven't progressed from "Modern Mechanix" 1930's style "Let's take a look at how Mrs. Smith will be cooking in 'The Kitchen Of Tomorrow'" stories or have we all had our brains so damaged by mass media blipverts that we need a concept jammed in the publics face every 6 months or it'll just magically erase itself from history?
    4. Re:Old News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also Robots of Dawn, by Asimov, which discusses the topic.

  11. The Lonely by ktappe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Rod Serling covered this in "The Lonely": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lonely_(The_Twilight_Zone)

    --
    "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
  12. Sounds like a sci-fi book. by AltGrendel · · Score: 1

    "Silver Metal Lover" by Tanith Lee

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  13. This is not unprecedented. by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who hasn't had a crush on a fictional character? As you are largely geeks reading this, I submit that many of you find at least some Anime girls hot - even though you know full well that they are not real: the human heart can vast in its ability to accept.

    I had a huge crush on Ryoko from the Tenchi Muyo animes. This crush didn't even require the physical contact that would be present with a robotic hottie. There is little room for doubt that our emotionally sticky limbic system can latch onto unusual objects of affection - I believe it's not unusual to be loved by anyone...or to love anything.

    1. Re:This is not unprecedented. by zebslash · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      I had once a crush on the fictional character of Nancy Callahan from Sin City. Of course it was played by Jessica Alba, but I really loved Nancy, I swear!

    2. Re:This is not unprecedented. by winkydink · · Score: 2, Funny

      You really need to get out more often. Really.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    3. Re:This is not unprecedented. by Tejin · · Score: 1
      Thank you tom Jones.

      It's not unusual to be loved by robot girls

      It's not unusual to have fun with robot girls

      but when I see you hanging about with robot girls

      It's not unusual to see me cry,

      oh I wanna' die

      It's not unusual to go out at any time

      but when I see you shut in your house it's such a crime

      if you should ever want to be loved by anyone,

      It's not unusual it happens every day no matter what you say

      you find it happens all the time

      love will never do what you want it to

      why can't this crazy love be mine

      It's not unusual, to be mad with robot girls

      It's not unusual, to be sad with robot girls

      but if I ever find that you've changed at anytime

      it's not unusual to find out that I'm in love with you

      whoa-oh-oh-oh-oh

      --
      The seekers do no need truth, the seekers do find truth and the finding do be painful
    4. Re:This is not unprecedented. by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I could see young people being particularly attracted to the idea of Robotic Sex. Anecdotally I know that many youth get their "first crush" on television personalities, and I'd imagine a smaller subset, but a significant one on animated women, even more so in today's age with the increased popularity anime (as the illistrations tend to be more human-equivalent than most american animation) and extremely realistic video games. (Think Dead or Alive 3 Extreme Beach Volleyball or whatever it was).

      I think if a culture develops where this is possible, or even accepted, young people whom demonstrate sexual attractiveness to non-real (or unattainable, such as teenie-bopper crushes on boy-bands) the line would be blurry enough that it might not replace the desire for sex with humans, but would be explored and maybe even embraced due to availability, diminished risk of disease/pregnancy/ass-kickings from angry dads/brothers, and the social cost of finding a partner in rejection and unavailability.

      I don't think it will change relationships as a whole, but I think emotionally impressionable youth or lonley adults, might first experiment and embrace this kind of thing. In anything you've always got early adopters, and if it sticks, there might be a place for this.

      Though, if I were investing, I think virtual reality sex has more potential for economic prosperity in the end if it could "trick" the brain into thinking that the VR image, which could be taken from a real-human source, is *real* and the sensory IO is *real.* I would think if it could overcome the mind, that it would be more fulfilling and people would gravitate to it more mostly because, I don't personally see robots ever being so-human (like the Replicants in Blade Runner, even in the next 100 years, or maybe ever for a normal person) that you can't tell from a distance, and even more that you can't tell doing something as multi-sensory as sex.

      --
      Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
    5. Re:This is not unprecedented. by jddj · · Score: 1

      Well, the New York Times is not in charge of the Gundam...

      There's a loooooooong way between a crush on an animated character and falling in love with someone. Crushes are all about hawtness. They won't get you through the lean times in a very-long-term relationship.

      For me, a necessary prerequisite to love is respect for the other person. Can you respect a device that doesn't have independent thought - or which is simply emulating independent thought?

      • People are already having sex with machines - and have been since at least the 1800s.
      • Any engineer-type has already had a crush on a machine; it doesn't even have to be human-shaped. How many of you guys got wood for an Altair 8800b (or even its ugly sister the 8800)? Howsabout for an Aston Martin DB-9?

      If you're talking about crushes or sex, well OK, but that's not news.

      You want to love - really love - a robot? Really? I think it's a stretch. OTOH, the summary says "humans" - not how many of them. Maybe some of this crowd are doing this already so...

    6. Re:This is not unprecedented. by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Who hasn't had a crush on a fictional character? As you are largely geeks reading this, I submit that many of you find at least some Anime girls
      > hot - even though you know full well that they are not real

      I think you need to turn that question around - who has?

      > the human heart can vast in its ability to accept.

      The human heart pumps blood around the human body.

    7. Re:This is not unprecedented. by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      I love how everyone thinks they know what "love" is.

      Love means you have to stick together for a long time? I guess im in love with my co workers then because I have tolerated them for years.

      Your just not ready to accept that there is no such thing as "love". And so it can be arbitrarily applied to whatever anyone wants. Its like happiness. Words to describe something that simply doesnt exsist.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    8. Re:This is not unprecedented. by Rary · · Score: 1

      And, sadly, all too many men mistake "thinking someone's hot" for "being in love".

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    9. Re:This is not unprecedented. by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      A neural net based robot,fed with thousands of virtual sex memories(of real humans),would probably simulate human sexual behavior.There is no need to the other end to be human(and if the thing is happening in virtual reality,it could be just a program).

    10. Re:This is not unprecedented. by digitig · · Score: 1

      "Marina" from Stingray in my case, which is giving my age away. In my defence and in retrospect, she does seem to have been based on Sophia Loren. Damn, giving my age away again :-(

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    11. Re:This is not unprecedented. by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 1

      ROFLMFAO

    12. Re:This is not unprecedented. by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 1

      Definately, I think a robot could be built "get the mechanics right" so to act just like a real person (respond to touch, etc...) with good enough engineering. I think the problem would be in our natural state, fully aware, a person would readily be able to tell "this is not a person" and that fact would always be in their mind. There is a reason that people still have sex with other people, even if they "function" alone, or with toys. If they're thinking of a "pull it out of a box, flip a switch and just go at it", kind of toy, and the customer has that kind of expectation, I think it would sell, but as a replacement, or something to "fall in love with" from the headline, I don't see it.

      I think getting a computer over the internet and phone to pass a turing test is hard enough, much less face-to-face. While that could be possible, I think the issue would be getting the mechanics of the robot correct, such as the feel and temperature of skin, breath, programmed fatigue, to be so correct along with the communication skills, that it would be insurmountable.

      I'd also think you'd need to "meet" the robot in public, assume it is a human for enough time to develop attraction, and "love", that it would persist even if you did discover it is not human. if you went to the store and bought it, I don't think a normal mind would ever accept it as more than clockwork, even with our tendancy to anthropromorphize, and the natural rapport that would develop "living" with the robot.

      Sex, maybe? Love, I don't see it, but I'd love to be proven wrong as what a feat of engineering it would be.

      The reason I suggest VR, is that I see it as being more possible to inject sexual imagery and sensory information into the brain in a way that the mind can't know that it isn't real (or even that the procedure would "block" the mental functions that distinguish the diffrence, kind of like some mental "disorders" do naturally) that would cause normal human processes of attraction, etc... to come about unhindered by the knowledge at it "isn't real."

      --
      Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
    13. Re:This is not unprecedented. by IronChef · · Score: 1

      There was an ep of ST Voyager where one of the characters fell for a holodeck construct.

      It was neat that in the context of the show, the characters discussed how that was a hazard. It seemed entirely reasonable to me. Hey, it's some of that thinking about the future stuff that ST used to be known for!

      There, that's my one good memory of Voyager.

    14. Re:This is not unprecedented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In love with a girl from an anime? It's a fucking cartoon you freak, what the hell is wrong with you.

    15. Re:This is not unprecedented. by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      There was also the guy who got addicted to the holodeck in ST:TNG. One of the programs he was shown using was apparently a power-fantasy involving several of his real-life (female) coworkers, and it was pretty clear that it was going in a sexual direction before he was interrupted...

    16. Re:This is not unprecedented. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      It does exist, it just defied description. One can certainly be happy. I have been known to be happy on occasion; it's not unheard of. However, to actually describe what the various states of emotion I lump together under the umbrella term of "happiness" mean, is extremely difficult at least.

      It's a bit like life - we can explain part of it in one special form. However, we can not conclusively describe what "life" actually means. Still, it does certainly exist.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    17. Re:This is not unprecedented. by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      I remember that one. There was also another one where the "Binars" created an enticing holodeck character to distract Riker.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    18. Re:This is not unprecedented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That seems to me more of lust and fantasy. Sure a sexbot would be sweet, but to me would be little more than an expensive masturbatory aid. I would like to snuggle with a girl who had a good sense of humor, who knew me well, who shared similar interests, etc. If a robot can effectively emulate a personality as well. . .then I think you'd have to reexamine what it means to be human. I think Star Trek examined this possibility quite well with Data's escapades. In one episode he dated a crew mate who had lust and fantasies about him, but a long lasting relationship just plain didn't work due to his inability to relate to her emotionally.

      I have lots of friends who are girls dating the wrong guys or vice-versa and let me tell you, I fully understand the ability of people to be blinded by their own fantasies and desires, but rarely do I see it last indefinitely. Posted AC because. . .yeah, weird stuff to talk about :-p I'll mod myself up tho :-p

  14. True Love is blind by beldon · · Score: 1

    I can't believe some people would be so shallow as to only love robots who conform to a pre-conceived idea of beauty. Some of us have always loved ours regardless of appearances. Even if they were the old-fashioned "square-headed" variety.

    Insensitive clods!

    1. Re:True Love is blind by Cy+Sperling · · Score: 1

      I agree. I am eager to finally get my robot that looks like kind of a mix between a vacuum cleaner and a chrome pig with marital aids stuck all over it. It would need to be made in Germany, cuz a lot of really good ones come from over there. Yet another reason Frank Zappa was a visionary. http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Frank-Zappa/A-Token-Of-My-Extreme.html

    2. Re:True Love is blind by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

      Some might have bugs. Imagine this instruction:

      while(using tongue)
          exec jawhingerachet for(;;)

      What would a Linux robot look like? European in sexy German leather? Would a Microsoft robot have Birkenstocks and small breasts? How about a BSD robot-- whips and chains??? And I can only imagine the Apple robot--- the batteries would die quickly, but fondly.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    3. Re:True Love is blind by 6L6GT · · Score: 1

      Just try not to plook it to death.

      --
      --Radio, the complex made simple. Computers, the simple made complex.
    4. Re:True Love is blind by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Well, if the OS-Tan girls are any indication, the Microsoft robot girls would have HUGE breasts, and wear very shiny, yet skimpy clothing. Unfortunately, they would also have some potentially dangerous bugs, but hey, they would have huge breasts, so who's counting, right?

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    5. Re:True Love is blind by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      You'll get my model XQJ-37 Nuclear Powered Pan-Sexual Roto-Plooker when you pry it from my cold, dead...errrr...hands.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  15. Why not? by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People already fall in love with a car, a boat, a Playstation, a video game character, a crack addicted ex... We can love anything. No news here.

    1. Re:Why not? by Stringer+Bell · · Score: 1

      People already fall in love with a car, a boat, a Playstation, a video game character, a crack addicted ex... We can love anything. No news here.

      Oo, good point. I'd mod you up, but my mod points expired last week.

    2. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loving a car is completely different than beign in love with a person. If people can't see that then I am truly terrified for the future.

    3. Re:Why not? by ortholattice · · Score: 1

      People already fall in love with a car, a boat, a Playstation, a video game character, a crack addicted ex... We can love anything. No news here.

      To "love" something means many things. Love for these things (possibly excluding the ex) almost certainly has nothing to do with finding them sexually attractive and wanting to "make love" to them. Do you love your parents? Your children? Your pet? You (and a good number of other posters here) seem to be using the word "love" with the wrong meaning.

      I think the topic under discussion is romantic/sexual love, which has nothing to do with most things you mention. Well, maybe a video game character for some people - perhaps if they are lonely and can't find a real life lover - although that is strange and probably involves imagining the character as having sexual attributes of a real person in some way. But sex with a car? That seems like a wild stretch of imagination.

    4. Re:Why not? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      To "love" something means many things. Love for these things (possibly excluding the ex) almost certainly has nothing to do with finding them sexually attractive and wanting to "make love" to them. Do you love your parents? Your children? Your pet? You (and a good number of other posters here) seem to be using the word "love" with the wrong meaning.

      I think the topic under discussion is romantic/sexual love, which has nothing to do with most things you mention. Well, maybe a video game character for some people - perhaps if they are lonely and can't find a real life lover - although that is strange and probably involves imagining the character as having sexual attributes of a real person in some way. But sex with a car? That seems like a wild stretch of imagination.


      The scary thing was that I read this story and knew where to find the link. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/26/bike_incident/ Can I weep for our future now?

  16. Why can't these factors apply to lamps, too? by gardyloo · · Score: 5, Funny

    I love lamp!

    1. Re:Why can't these factors apply to lamps, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait! Are you just looking at things around the office and saying you love them or do you really love the lamp?

    2. Re:Why can't these factors apply to lamps, too? by SwordsmanLuke · · Score: 1

      Just watch out for that socket. Trust me, don't try it!

      --
      Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
    3. Re:Why can't these factors apply to lamps, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Why can't these factors apply to lamps, too? by HRbnjR · · Score: 1

      [swedish accent]That's because you are craazy[/swedish accent]

  17. Here's a review. by AltGrendel · · Score: 1
    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  18. And this is surprising how? by gurps_npc · · Score: 0
    Lets face it, people are shallow. Men won't date overweight women, women won't date short men. The only difference is men are not proud of their prejudice, while women will state it out-right.

    There are a lot of wonderful human beings that simply can't find someone willing to love them despite their physical flaws.

    Hence the large number of pets people have.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:And this is surprising how? by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      You're saying that people keep pets because the people are overweight or short? Not only does correlation not imply causation, but I don't even think there's a correlation here. Prove me wrong.

    2. Re:And this is surprising how? by foobsr · · Score: 1

      Men won't date overweight women

      Might be different some other place, e.g. More than 90% of Tongans are overweight, making the South Sea islanders the world's fattest nation.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    3. Re:And this is surprising how? by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hence the large number of pets people have.

      But loving of pets is illegal in most places, no matter what you see on those websites.

    4. Re:And this is surprising how? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      No, I said that people keep pets because they can't find someone to love them. Do some ven diagrams. Lonely people is the big circle. The short men and overweight women are circles that interesect with the big lonely one, but neither is completely contained - their are short men/overweight women that have found companions. Add a 4th circle that again is not completely contained by any of the other 3. This is the circle of pet owners and it contains a large section (more than 1/2) of the lonely people.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    5. Re:And this is surprising how? by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      But Venn diagrams supported by supposition and not hard data are more than useless, because you wasted your time to draw such a thing.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    6. Re:And this is surprising how? by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      Men won't date overweight women

      Is that why you woman get so fat? But however, as I wrote in a slashdot journal last January titled A Nerd's Guide to Getting Laid, many of us WILL date heavy women!

      2. Don't be picky! Face it, you're never, ever going to have sex with a supermodel. Find an ugly chick (or dork) who's likely having as much trouble getting laid as you are. Go to the library - a nerd of the opposite sex (or same sex if you're ghey) is as likely as you to want to get laid, but not be able to.

      My current girlfriend weighs 300 pounds and hadn't gotten laid in six months when I met her. My last girlfriend was flat chested, bow legged, and had no teeth. There are definite psychical advantages to having a toothless girlfriend, too. If she's flat chested, two words: Doggy style.

      Since you're a nerd, never forget to thank science for its advances! I'd never be able to get it up for my girlfriend if they hadn't invented viagra. Your doctor will prescribe it or give you a sample pack, just tell him you're having problems getting an erection. Just don't tell him you can't get it up because your girlfriend's butt-ugly. A side effect of viagra is it makes you onto a superlover - it turns you into the Energizer Bunny. You take the pill, she gets the benefits.
      I broke up with the drunken bitch shortly afterward. Since then I've been dating prostitutes.

      -mcgrew
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    7. Re:And this is surprising how? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Clearly these fat women and short men are not as wonderful as you would think since the fat women won't have sex with a man just because he is short, and the short men won't have sex with women just because she is fat. Why should anyone accept either of these two groups when the fat women and short men you speak of won't accept flaws in others?

    8. Re:And this is surprising how? by 10Neon · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is not possible to waste time drawing a Venn diagram. The action is a reward in and of itself.

      --
      The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
    9. Re:And this is surprising how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may be the most profound thing I've ever read on slashdot.

  19. I see where this is going... by Xaositecte · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey Baby, Wanna kill all humans?

  20. Deamon Seed by spribyl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thats fine until the robots figure out how to reproduce.
    Anyone remember "Deamon Seed" or the more recent Battle Star Galatica.

    Can you rape a robot?
    Can a robot rape you?

    1. Re:Deamon Seed by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Can you rape a robot?
      No, the trangression would not be against the robot; it would be against the owner. The crime would be called conversion because while you are having sex with somebody elses robot you are preventing the owner from doing that same.

      Can a robot rape you? Theoretically, yes. This is why robots like this need Asimov's three laws.
    2. Re:Deamon Seed by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      My memory of movies I watched fifteen years ago on late-night (or morning) UHF stations is fuzzy at best, but I think the moral in Demon Seed is different: If your employer keeps an AI on the network, and you've just purchased a home automation system, don't dial into the office or your wife will get all knocked up and have computer babies.

      Excuse me, I've got a Roomba to smash.

    3. Re:Deamon Seed by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      In answer to your questions, yes, yes, no, and yes.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Deamon Seed by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Can a robot rape you? Theoretically, yes. This is why robots like this need Asimov's three laws.

      "This unit believed it was not harming the human, but bringing it pleasure. This unit knows that humans are dishonest, and believed that 'no' meant 'yes'."

      That's why we'll need The Fourth Law of Robotics: "No" means "No"!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  21. Rather a Holodeck! by SlashdotCrackPot · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd much rather have a holodeck, the possibilities are endless!

    (That and I already have the sign made to hang over the door that reads:
    Scott's Holodeck of Whores: Enter At Own Risque)

    1. Re:Rather a Holodeck! by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      This occurs in the holosuites of Deep Space Nine, with Quark acting as the proprietor/pimp. Speaking of which, what happenes when somebody ejaculates in a holosuite? Are the fluids beamed away afterward, or do they just drop to the floor after the program ends? I posted that question to a forum on startrek.com and never got a reply :(

    2. Re:Rather a Holodeck! by SlashdotCrackPot · · Score: 1

      Strangely I have had the same thought, but I figure by the time we have holodecks, splooge socks will be outdated..

    3. Re:Rather a Holodeck! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I mentioned in a slashdot journal that I'm hanging a sign outside my house, "mcgrew's home for wayward women"

      Well I'm not always home but I'm there often enough.

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Rather a Holodeck! by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Oh good, I'm not the only person to think of that. I'm going with beamed away, but that could cause some interesting issues if the program ended early and anything inside the hologram got beamed out.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    5. Re:Rather a Holodeck! by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      I doubt that this would be really what would happen. If they had this ability, then why wouldnt he just "beam" all the dirt in the bar out? Quark plenty of times can be seen whiping down tables and cleaning up. Im sure he just gets one of the dabo girls to hose down the holideck after use. I doubt manual cleaning will ever go away, even in the 24th century.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    6. Re:Rather a Holodeck! by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Actually, they could just run a cleaning program. Have a holo-person wipe up and scrub the deck, then deposit the cleaning material in some sort of matter de-constructor (inverse replicator). The idea of having bits beamed out is just funny to me at this point in the day.
      Heck, do it right and this might even be able to sell access to the program.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    7. Re:Rather a Holodeck! by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      What about workout programs? When Miles O'Brien goes whitewater rafting, does all of the sweat that falls into the river suddenly drop to the ground when the river dematerializes? How about some of the longer story-based programs? Surely people have to take a piss from time to time, and who wants to break immersion (or waste money, in the case of Quark's holodecks) by leaving? For that matter, what happens to holo-drinks and holo-food that gets consumed? Do people get full on it, then suddenly feel hungry when the program ends?

    8. Re:Rather a Holodeck! by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 1

      I always assumed the holo-food was replicated food. It would be easy to put a replicator where a holo-character could pick up the food and deliver it to the real person. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. Holodecks work through force fields--right? A clump of meat would just be a force field mimicking the texture of meat. When you put it in your mouth it couldn't break down like meat, could it? It wouldn't taste like anything. Force fields can't mimic molecules that attach to your taste buds.

    9. Re:Rather a Holodeck! by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      OK, so you've got real (made by replicators) food and drinks.

      Then what happens if you order something but shut down the program before you eat it? Or to crumbs?

      Do they get zapped by some sort of invisible disintegration beam?

      Given how often holodecks malfunction, I certainly wouldn't trust anything like that not to zap me, too!

      I think they've gotta be holograms, too, but you are right--in that case, they should have no flavor, or at least not the flavor that they're supposed to have. Gross.

  22. Slashdot members have sex by BlowHole666 · · Score: 1, Funny

    This just in a member of Slashdot has finally had sex. Stay tuned for news at 10.

    --
    I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
  23. jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots by wehe · · Score: 1

    This former ./ article deals with jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots.

  24. Who needs robots? by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 1

    >> when people could actually fall in love with life-like robots

    It doesn't even require a life-like robot for a nerd to fall in love with.. Usually a bit of pixels on the screen, resembling some attractive women having sex with men do just fine $)

    --
    - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
    - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
  25. We're just monkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For most people, "falling in love" means convenient sex and it strokes your ego.

    Nietzsche was right, we must become supermen, that way we will stop falling in love with monkeys, robots, and idiots, and thus breeding more idiots.

    1. Re:We're just monkeys by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Most mental retardation is not genetic, but environmental. My oldest daughter's IQ is measured at 65; her umbilical cord was wrapped around her neck at birth. My youngest daughter's IQ is 130.

      My friend Linda, who's now in jail on a drug charge, isn't the brightest bulb on th etree but she had 14 kids, 13 of whom are still alive. She wins the Darwin race hands down; I only have the two kids.

      If all the sex you have is with your hand, your genes all die.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  26. Silly question. by jockeys · · Score: 5, Funny
    from TFA, emphasis is mine:

    Levy spends so much time laying out his logical arguments about how and why we will fall in love with robots that he gives short shrift to the bigger questions of whether we would really want to. I'd have liked a little less gee-whiz, and a little more examination about whether a sexbot in every home, a Kama Sutra on legs that never tires, never says no, and never has needs of its own is what we really want.
    well, that's got to be the stupidest question I've ever read. OF COURSE WE DO.
    --

    In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
    1. Re:Silly question. by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      I don't know about "never tires." I'm pretty sure that it's the men that tire.

    2. Re:Silly question. by Wwolf · · Score: 1

      As the article was written by a woman, she may have met some of those men.

      Assuming the article is accurate in that they would be programmed with just about everything, then they could probably also teach some guys how to have a bit more endurance, if they were interested in finding a woman. It could make for a good teacher, potentially teaching all sorts of other skills. Clean, no chance for pregnancy, infinitely patient, supportive, etc.

      On the plus side, even if they can't last at all a robot wouldn't be disappointed. Unless the programmer wanted to be a bastard, or pretend to be more realistic.

    3. Re:Silly question. by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      potentially off topic, but date an Indian woman (from India that is) they are raised not to have much in the way of their own desires, only to have your desires.

      Dating one is a lot like dating a servant...or a robot.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  27. Only on Slashdot by Stooshie · · Score: 3, Funny

    Only on slashdot would someone consider having sex with a robot as a relationship.

    --
    America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    1. Re:Only on Slashdot by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Only on slashdot would someone be that ignorant of women. Women have relationships with their dildos!

      "I don't need no damned man," she said, "I have a job and Mr. Buzzy!"

      -mcgrew
      Tis the season to commit suicide

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:Only on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey as for depression, there's full spectrum lights that are supposed to help, they put out UV light and are an attempt at a surrogate sun. st. johns wort as an herbal supplement has been studied and is supposed to help. Vit-D3 might be deficient do to lack of sunlight exposure. Also a big one I just discovered, Essential fatty acids. and a deficiency of them can cause depression, EFA/DHA, Like Cod liver oil, Krill Oil, or there are vegetarian versions out there... What else, there's a weird self therapy called EFT: Emotional Freedom Technique, supposed to be good, I think maybe so. You could give it a shot. http://www.tapping.com/ and related to using EFT for approaching women: http://www.innergametapping.com/...

      I take an expensive multi-vitamin which is supposed to help me cover all my bases. You should attempt some exercise too, and get enough sleep, and have a way to cope with stress... I've been working at it, I've been rather getting seriously suicidal, and had bad winters most of the time... This time around I'm doing pretty damn good. A lot of people are probably mineral deficient in stuff like zinc and magnesium too.. Couple things to try out. I was feeling pretty bad in Nov. and I think finding out about the EPA/DHA really did it for me... I think I might have totally turned it around this time heheh. good luck, and I hope that helped.

    3. Re:Only on Slashdot by Scud · · Score: 1

      Only on slashdot would someone consider having sex with a robot as a relationship.


      Try to be understanding.

      It's for those of us that are so ugly that we have to tie a printed circuit board around our neck to get a date. (Batteries included no less).
      --
      I dream in binary.
    4. Re:Only on Slashdot by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      All true. I tale a multivitamin (the Walgreen's generic for Centrum Geezer), sleep as much as I can (but it's hard to find time for sleep when you're working and chasing women). I'd read that studies showed tha St John's Wort was as effective as Paxil for depression, so I keep a bottle handy in the medicine chest.

      Exersise is harder to come by in the winter. I should get a snow shovel.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  28. Emotionally Stunted by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can only assume that anyone who imagines being "in love" with a machine is severely emotionally stunted. What is love without the need, and willingness to sacrifice? What is love without emotional exposure? What is love without the risk of loss?

    It is totally okay with me if this guy wants to fuck animatronics, but he doesn't do himself a service by confusing that with love.

    -Peter

    1. Re:Emotionally Stunted by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's a criteria I'd use for a healthy love relationship that current machines cannot meet: It has to be capable of returning love. Do not love or hate anything that cannot love or hate you in return. Simple rule. Easy to forget.

      Love = sacrifice? Love = emotional exposure? Love = risk of loss?

      We can definitely satisfy those three criteria with a machine.

      Sacrifice: I had to wait in line to get my Nintendo WII.

      Emotional exposure: I tell my Nintendo WII that I love it and ...it makes fun of me. Or not.

      Risk of loss: You can call it risk, but losing a loving relationship is 100% certain. All marriages end. 2/3rds in divorce, 1/3rd in death. And my Nintendo WII is going to breakdown and die.

      No, those three criteria don't work to disqualify robots from love relationships.

    2. Re:Emotionally Stunted by bigtangringo · · Score: 4, Funny

      What is love without the need, and willingness to sacrifice? What is love without emotional exposure? What is love without the risk of loss? Better?
      --
      Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
    3. Re:Emotionally Stunted by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      You didn't sacrifice for the Wii.

      -Peter

    4. Re:Emotionally Stunted by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      What is love without the need, and willingness to sacrifice?

      I take it you've never worked on machinery (see the part titled "The automobile distributor and points")

      What is love without the risk of loss?

      Stuff breaks. Stuff burns. Stuff gets lost. But stuff doesn't leave you for another man.

      -mcgrew
      Tis the season to commit suicide

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    5. Re:Emotionally Stunted by looseBits · · Score: 1

      Remember, love in heterosexual couples is nothing more than an evolutionary solution to ensure both parents help raise offspring (homosexual love likely fills other needed species-survival rolls). I think it would be quite simple for that solution to be fooled into allowing someone to feel quite similarly for a machine.

      As an example of _tricking_ (at least partially so) our evolved instincts, my wife and I are unable to have children but our two dogs seem to have somewhat relieved us of that desire.

      --
      Lord, bless my users that they may stop being such fucking idiots!!
    6. Re:Emotionally Stunted by hey! · · Score: 1

      I can only assume that anyone who imagines being "in love" with a machine is severely emotionally stunted.


      I don't think that's a justifiable assumption. While it is probable that emotionally stunted individuals will be attracted to a machine that presents fewer emotional challenges than a human, it doesn't necessarily follow that anybody who is "in love" with some future robot is necessarily emotionally stunted.

      There are many kinds of "love", and being "in love" is the most emotionally immature of them. It's quite possible to imagine a robot of 2060 being able to inspire this kind of irrational feeling that is an amalgam of physical lust and emotional idealization. If we fast forward to technology such as we see in science fiction, say Cmdr. Data of Star Trek or the replicants of Blade Runner, we are talking about robots who are indisputably "persons" if they aren't "people" (in the sense of being bona fide members of the species). Love with such a robot would involve similar personal challenges to loving a human, an therefore we can imagine people engaging in the higher forms of love as well as the more juvenile.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:Emotionally Stunted by ooutland · · Score: 1

      Show of hands: how many of us have fallen in love with someone based on illusions? Fooled either by our own desires for who we want the love object to be, superimposed on someone who isn't and can't and doesn't want to be that person, or by someone else's false presentation of him/herself when their real self turns out to be nothing like the person they first seemed...

      Imagine a partner who really does share your interests, is full of useful and interesting information on those interests, can access information that can help it (yes, it) discover new things for the two of you to learn and do together. Who really is what you desire physically, and really shares your, um, tastes. Who *is* exactly who it seems to be. What is stunted about a relationship that is, at least, honest?

      --
      I'm the queer the atheists sent here to take away your gun!
    8. Re:Emotionally Stunted by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      love in heterosexual couples is nothing more than an evolutionary solution Don't be too sure of that. "Love" as being fundamental to a couple's relationship is a fairly recent phenomenon. Now "lust", on the other hand...
    9. Re:Emotionally Stunted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, love in heterosexual couples is nothing more than an evolutionary solution to ensure both parents help raise offspring (homosexual love likely fills other needed species-survival rolls). Citation, please.

      And if this is the case then how come couples can feel fulfilled without having children? Sex drive isn't just for baby-making.
    10. Re:Emotionally Stunted by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      But it can never be the full experience when you can just turn off any behavior you don't like, or just program the thing to accept any behavior you choose.

      -Peter

    11. Re:Emotionally Stunted by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      A relationship where it is perfectly okay to be completely selfish is not fully developed. Honesty is good, but it isn't the only attribute in play.

      -Peter

    12. Re:Emotionally Stunted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a feminist idiot. Mangina.

    13. Re:Emotionally Stunted by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      What if he stood in the pouring rain all night, waiting for a chance to simply catch a glimpse of his wii, while violin music played softly in the background and a blind, hobbled pauper, noiselessly trembled his cup for change?

      The idea that love has to have sacrifice is judeo-christian anyway. Im sure it makes you feel good telling other people they are not in "love" based on some list you some list you somehow worked out and internally justify.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    14. Re:Emotionally Stunted by zombie_striptease · · Score: 1

      I think you may have confused "love" and "codependence".

      In all seriousness, the ways people define love vary greatly. Sacrifice and risk aren't such important factors for everyone as they seem to be for you, but that doesn't mean that what they're feeling isn't love, it's just not your perception of love.

    15. Re:Emotionally Stunted by ispeters · · Score: 1

      What is love without the need, and willingness to sacrifice?

      If you're questioning the ability of a person to be willing to sacrifice for an inanimate object, consider the people that line up for the latest game console.

      If you're questioning the ability of a robot to adequately simulate willingness to sacrifice, I think you lack imagination—the required technical ability might take longer than the article predicts, but the robot doesn't have to actualy be willing to sacrifice for its companion, it merely has to seem willing to sacrifice with enough accuracy of simulation to convince the companion. That seems fairly easy to me, in comparison.

      What is love without emotional exposure?

      This sounds like a vague question to me. What do you mean by "emotional exposure"? Are you talking about the kinds of things people feel and do when they share intimate thoughts and feelings? If so, I think it's easy to imagine a human being speaking to his (or her) robot companion about his (or her) innermost thoughts. I concede that a good robotic simulation of intimate discussion is up there with strong AI, but perhaps we don't need a good simulation if the human being in the equation is more interested in a listener than a talker.

      What is love without the risk of loss?

      Again, I think it's easy to imagine a human worried about losing his robotic companion, and it seems within the realm of possibility for a robot to convincingly simulate this reciprocally.

      I haven't RTFA, so perhaps your response is to something I'm missing, but I don't think the summary is confusing the desire to "fuck animatronics" with "real" love. The two are orthogonal concepts and I don't see any obvious reason why someone couldn't love a robot. After all, how do you (or would you) know that your significant other loves you? It is only through his or her outward behaviour that you can surmise his or her internal state of mind. The same behaviour without the underlying love would be as convincing, right up until you find out that your spouse is a Russian spy, or something. There's no need for a robot to really feel in love—it merely has to act in love. Also, I may be a cynic in this regard, but I think "love" is nothing more than a chemical incentive to find a mate and propagate your genes. I don't think that diminishes love—it certainly doesn't diminish the endorphin rush of being with/thinking about/doing stuff for my wife—but it certainly broadens my perspective on why or with whom (or what) we may fall in love.

      Ian

    16. Re:Emotionally Stunted by hey! · · Score: 1

      Certainly. So presuming on this particular robot it is possible to turn off behaviors you don't like (unlike, say, Cmdr Data), you just don't do it.

      Presto -- an act of selfless love.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:Emotionally Stunted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You spend way too much time in the self help section of BN.

      So marriage must be love cause I have lost soooo many things since then.
      My car, she drives it now. My cash, she has it now, My TV remote, she has it now,
      my friends cause she won't let me hang with them so much. My alone time cause she
      is hangin on me all the time. Sex cause she has lost interest.

      Divorce is too expensive and I figure other women are the same.

      Yea I've got love and I got it good.

      Love is a load of crap.

    18. Re:Emotionally Stunted by Rary · · Score: 1

      "If you're questioning the ability of a person to be willing to sacrifice for an inanimate object, consider the people that line up for the latest game console."

      They're not doing it for the console (as in, for the console's benefit), they're doing it for themselves (as in, they want the console). Similar words, different meaning.

      "...the ability of a robot to adequately simulate willingness to sacrifice... a good robotic simulation of intimate discussion... convincingly simulate this reciprocally..."

      Lots of talk of simulation. In other words, everything in this "relationship" is illusion, nothing is real. That's not "love", that's "simulated love". It looks and acts like it, but it's not it.

      "There's no need for a robot to really feel in love--it merely has to act in love."

      And therefore you know definitively that it is not actually in love.

      A person who "falls in love" with a machine is completely missing what it really is to be in love. It might be a pretty decent simulation of love. And, if that's what you want, cool. But that's all it is.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    19. Re:Emotionally Stunted by hey! · · Score: 1

      Oh nonsense.

      Maybe its cognitive dissonance at work, but you don't value what you don't put effort into.

      I imagine that the "relationship ready robot" will be an outgrowth of the gaming industry. You don't design a game so it's too easy to beat (simple robot). You don't design a game so it is impossible to beat (human). The sweet spot is in between.

      Of course, different people will want different kinds of robots, just like different people like different levels of complexity in their games. For some people the perfect gaming experience is something you can pick up and put down as you please, like Wii Sports, and others are looking for something like the latest installment of the Halo franchise. Likewise, there are bound to be some robot enthusiasts who are best described as "casual", and others who are, errrh, "hard core".

      That was a hell of a long way to go for a crummy pun.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    20. Re:Emotionally Stunted by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      Where are mod points when you need them?

    21. Re:Emotionally Stunted by nunyadambinness · · Score: 1

      What is love without the need, and willingness to sacrifice? What is love without emotional exposure? What is love without the risk of loss?


      Awesome?
    22. Re:Emotionally Stunted by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Allow me to re-phrase one more time. He didn't sacrifice for the benefit of the Wii.

      I'm not talking about "suffering for love", I'm talking about making some sacrifice of one's self out of love, for the benefit of a loved one. The thing that nearly every mother in every culture does every day.

      For the record, I don't subscribe to any religion, and I don't really care what other people do in their private lives. But I do assert that a "relationship" with a machine is necessarily one-way, and that taking that for genuine love is infantile.

      -Peter

    23. Re:Emotionally Stunted by ispeters · · Score: 1

      They're not doing it for the console (as in, for the console's benefit), they're doing it for themselves (as in, they want the console). Similar words, different meaning.

      Yeah, I realized that after I hit Post and then read a few of the other comments. I think some people do go to great lengths to protect their possessions—even greater than could be attributed to simple desire to continue possessing them. For example, some works of art are valued for themselves and not merely for the benefit of possession and I'm sure there are people that have sacrificed for the art.

      And therefore you know definitively that it is not actually in love.

      A person who "falls in love" with a machine is completely missing what it really is to be in love. It might be a pretty decent simulation of love. And, if that's what you want, cool. But that's all it is.

      I fail to see the difference between a perfect simulation and reality. I'm no solipsist, but, in the end, my experiences are nothing more than the sum of my sensory inputs. I "know" that my wife loves me, but I only know it because she acts the way that someone in love acts. In fact, I "know" that she's human, but only because she looks, acts, smells, sounds, feels, and tastes human. She could be a replicant, for all I know. Loving and feeling loved are 100% internal. They are a collection of sensory inputs that add up to a common phenomenon. I can see no reason to believe that the necessary sensory inputs could not, in principle, be simulated with sufficient accuracy to create a feeling of being loved that is indistinguishable from "the real thing" and, supposing that such a simulation is possible, I see no reason to differentiate between "real love" and "simulated love".

      I suppose I might concede that the first several iterations of this hypothetical love-bot would only be capable of limited relationships because the creativity of the human mind might be difficult to match with a machine, but I think that would be a temporary obstacle.

      Ian

      PS I suppose I should state here that I'm areligious, don't believe in a "soul", and take a pretty materialistic (as opposed to spiritualistic) point of view. I don't think love is mystical in any way. It's pretty awesome, but it's just a bunch of chemistry in the molecules-and-atoms sense. If you disagree with me on that point, then I don't think we're ever going to agree on the larger point under discussion.

    24. Re:Emotionally Stunted by master_p · · Score: 1

      What's love gotta do with sex?

    25. Re:Emotionally Stunted by zoips · · Score: 1

      Lots of talk of simulation. In other words, everything in this "relationship" is illusion, nothing is real. That's not "love", that's "simulated love". It looks and acts like it, but it's not it.

      You missed the real point. The real point is that you have no idea that the other person in a relationship is actually reciprocating or giving the illusion of; in essence simulating. Because that is true, it is then actually irrelevant if the robot can only merely "simulate" as long as it is convincing enough.

      Solipsism is a hilarious concept, but completely out of the realm of being disprovable. Prove that other person exists. Prove that other person loves you and just doesn't fake it convincingly.

    26. Re:Emotionally Stunted by solsire · · Score: 1

      Those willing to sacrifice can always go for Vista. Plenty of emotions, too.

    27. Re:Emotionally Stunted by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      What is love without the need, and willingness to sacrifice? What is love without emotional exposure? What is love without the risk of loss? What is love
      Oh baby, don't hurt me
      Don't hurt me no more
      What is love
      Oh baby, don't hurt me
      Don't hurt me no more

      Whoa whoa whoa, oooh oooh
      Whoa whoa whoa, oooh oooh
    28. Re:Emotionally Stunted by Rary · · Score: 1

      "The real point is that you have no idea that the other person in a relationship is actually reciprocating or giving the illusion of; in essence simulating."

      With a person, you don't know. They could be "simulating". They could also not be "simulating". However, with a robot, you definitively know right from the start that it is only a simulation. That's the crucial difference.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    29. Re:Emotionally Stunted by Rary · · Score: 1

      "I fail to see the difference between a perfect simulation and reality. I'm no solipsist, but, in the end, my experiences are nothing more than the sum of my sensory inputs. I "know" that my wife loves me, but I only know it because she acts the way that someone in love acts. In fact, I "know" that she's human, but only because she looks, acts, smells, sounds, feels, and tastes human."

      You believe that your wife is human, but can't know it for sure. You believe that your wife loves you, but can't know it for sure. That's the reality of human love. There's an element of risk and faith.

      With a robot, you absolutely know that it's a robot, and you absolutely know that it doesn't actually love you, it merely simulates it. There's no risk. There's no faith. You know it's all fake. You can only pretend to believe it.

      "I suppose I should state here that I'm areligious, don't believe in a "soul", and take a pretty materialistic (as opposed to spiritualistic) point of view. I don't think love is mystical in any way. It's pretty awesome, but it's just a bunch of chemistry in the molecules-and-atoms sense. If you disagree with me on that point, then I don't think we're ever going to agree on the larger point under discussion."

      I don't disagree with you on that point. I just think that "falling in love" with a robot requires an incredible amount of self-delusion. One would have to be utterly convinced of something that one definitively knows to be false.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    30. Re:Emotionally Stunted by ispeters · · Score: 1

      You believe that your wife is human, but can't know it for sure. You believe that your wife loves you, but can't know it for sure. That's the reality of human love. There's an element of risk and faith.

      With a robot, you absolutely know that it's a robot, and you absolutely know that it doesn't actually love you, it merely simulates it. There's no risk. There's no faith. You know it's all fake. You can only pretend to believe it.

      I have a feeling this discussion is going to end up with us agreeing to disagree, but you've got yourself confused there. When I said that I only know my wife is human/loves me to the extent that I can observe her doing things that support that theory, I meant it in a Descartian way—that I can't know anything with absolute certainty (except that cogito ergo sum). Therefore, you can't say first that I take it on faith that my wife is human and then say that I absolutely know that a hypothetical love-bot is a robot.

      Also, you come back again to the fact that a robot cannot love—it can merely simulate loving. What's the difference? If a computer simulates playing chess, what's the difference between that and a computer playing chess? What's the difference between a "real" diamond and a "fake" diamond? They're both clear carbon—the only difference is in the mushy, sentimental BS that people link with paying a warlord for the right to do some digging in his backyard. A sufficiently advanced android would be indistinguishable from a human in the same way.

      I suppose that my point boils down to this: all aspects of the human experience are physical events in the brain, so convincing someone to feel love or loved is merely a matter of stimulating the right set of physical events in his brain. I don't see any reason to believe that the stimulus has to be human. In fact, I don't see any reason to believe that the stimulus has to be external—it could just as easily be some electrodes planted in the brain that simulate passionate, abiding love for some lost person.

      I don't want to suggest that you are racist or sexist, nor do I want to invoke Godwin's law, but your argument that robot love is not "real" makes me think of arguments that black people or women are not people. It's arbitrary. The racist and sexist arguments are negative because the so-called non-people are hurt by them whereas denying love to a machine seems without victim, but, from an objective, non-judgmental perspective, the arguments seem very similar to me—some arbitrary criterion is proposed for determining personhood/loveability and the argument is fixed a priori such that black people and women/robots are disqualified by definition. That's not a convincing argument that a person could not love a robot—it's merely a rewording of the question to exclude robots.

      Ian

    31. Re:Emotionally Stunted by Rary · · Score: 1

      "I have a feeling this discussion is going to end up with us agreeing to disagree, but you've got yourself confused there. When I said that I only know my wife is human/loves me to the extent that I can observe her doing things that support that theory, I meant it in a Descartian way--that I can't know anything with absolute certainty (except that cogito ergo sum). Therefore, you can't say first that I take it on faith that my wife is human and then say that I absolutely know that a hypothetical love-bot is a robot."

      No, I haven't confused myself at all, although I may have done a poor job of explaining my point. As far as "knowing" anything goes, I see no point in discussing anything at all if we don't at least accept that, in the interest of discussion, we "know" the things we observe and experience, without getting metaphysical, as that is just a whole other debate entirely. So, given that assumption, and using the word "know" in that sense, I'll rephrase what I was saying before. Your wife acts in a way that indicates that she loves you, and you accept that she does this because she actually does love you, and not for any other reason (deception, programming, whatever). In the case of a robot that acts in a way that indicates that it loves you, there is no question as to why it does this: it is given an explicit set of instructions telling it to do so, and it is only capable of following those instructions to the letter.

      I had some other stuff in here, but I'm tired and not explaining it very well, so I'll skip it, since you're probably right that we're just going to have to agree to disagree anyway.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

  29. Pshyeahright by Stringer+Bell · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when propellerheads get paid to write books about love and sex. There's a lot more to love than what is tangible and quantifiable.

  30. 1st law of robotics addenum by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 5, Funny

    A robot must never harm a human, unless "kinky mode" is enabled.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    1. Re:1st law of robotics addenum by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      I think that might be the inverse really. When you think about it, an Asimovian robot would have to follow all orders given to it by a human. If you're a human with a fetish for power, wouldn't a robot make a great slave? You know it couldn't harm you, and would follow all your orders up to the point of its destruction...

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    2. Re:1st law of robotics addenum by morari · · Score: 1

      Would the robot have a "safe word" or would you just have to clap three times to stop it?

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    3. Re:1st law of robotics addenum by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Actually, an Asimovian robot would make a pretty good dom, as well. Well, if you either leave the SM out of BDSM (leaving BD and DS) or have a first law that allows the infliction of non-severe pain and possibly light bruising. At least as an intermediary dom, an Asimovian robot could work quite well.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    4. Re:1st law of robotics addenum by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2, Funny

      When you're tied up clapping is as much use as an off switch.

      Besides, where sex is involved I try to avoid the word "clap". "My robot gave me nanites!"

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    5. Re:1st law of robotics addenum by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1
      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  31. Did you guess the name of Billy's planet? by CSMatt · · Score: 1

    It was Earth.

    Don't date robots!

  32. From Agnes - With Love by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, that's a twist!

    "Advice to all future male scientists: be sure you understand the opposite sex, especially if you intend being a computer expert. Otherwise, you may find yourself, like poor Elwood, defeated by a jealous machine, a most dangerous sort of female, whose victims are forever banished--to...

    the Twilight Zone."


    http://www.tv.com/the-twilight-zone/from-agnes---with-love/episode/12725/summary.html

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:From Agnes - With Love by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I dunno, I think women will be protesting love robots from here to eternity.

      I mean, if they can come up with a realistic robot, that looks like the ideal chick to any guy, will never age or get old looking (nothing sags), won't give you AIDS or any other STD, will NEVER say no, and give you the custom 'ride of your life' every time you 'mount up'........

      No man in the world would ever give the time of day to a real woman ever again.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No man in the world would ever give the time of day to a real woman ever again.

      That's ok, their robot goes all night long and never leaves the toilet seat up.

    3. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Xinef+Jyinaer · · Score: 1

      Personally I don't think that's true.
      You will find at some point in time that you fall in love with a woman for more than her looks and ability and willingness to give you sex whenever you want. I know this sounds crazy but it's really true ( imo, though I'm only 18 so judge for yourself ), without perfect AI I don't think any non shallow male could claim to 'love' his robot. This might just be me... Personally I have no problems with real women, sure they're a bit moody at times and some are complete shallow bitches but then you meet some really great ones and one absolutely fantastic one who you'd be willing to spend your life with, and live(what robot could enjoy a sunset with you, or a view of the great pyramids or any other sight you can imagine).

      I'll admit, atleast she'll be able to run linux.

      --
      Some days I just get bored and Troll post all the memes I can think of...
    4. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't want to be horny and find out I forgot my password.

    5. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know this sounds crazy but it's really true ( imo, though I'm only 18 so judge for yourself ), without perfect AI I don't think any non shallow male could claim to 'love' his robot. This might just be me...

      Well let me be the first to present it in this manner.

      01) No PMS
      02) No hormonal imbalances
      03) No maxxed out credit cards
      04) No cars driven til the motor burns up due to lack of oil
      05) No bitching when your with your male friends at a sports/whatever event.
      06) No lies
      07) No drugs
      08) No veneral disease
      09) No coming home to an empty house, bank account, garage, investment accounts
      10) perfect food, sex, massage, and SILENCE when ever you want it.

      Young men tend to believe in love, older men become jaded, and ACQUIRE
      the above list of 10 things as I have.

      4 decades of harsh reality tends to fill in the above list.

      Here is to hoping you retain your innocent unjaded view for your entire life.

      ~Adios~

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    6. Re:From Agnes - With Love by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "You will find at some point in time that you fall in love with a woman for more than her looks and ability and willingness to give you sex whenever you want."

      You said you're only 18...and you're optimistic.

      While it 'can' happen that you meet and fall in love for life with the perfect woman, I find that is is quite rare. Love is a fleeting thing, it comes, it goes....but, you never get tired of good sex with a good looking partner.

      Everyone is different, but, personally, I see no reason to marry or settle down with one partner UNLESS for some reason you actually want kids. If you screw around and have them by accident, well, then you're stuck, since you do need to be responsible for your actions....

      But, really in the long run, very very few people meet that perfect person, and stay with them and stay in LOVE with them forever, hence look at all the divorces, and unhappily married people who don't divorce for various reasons. Look how many divorce just after the last kid leaves the nest...

      I dunno...love is fleeting, love can really HURT....so, who needs it? Just go and enjoy sexual relationships for the moment, and move on when it is time....it never gets 'boring' or routine, and you don't risk losing half of everything you own each time you find that you want to upgrade to a newer girlfriend.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:From Agnes - With Love by andreyw · · Score: 3, Informative

      So hows that RealDoll?

    8. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I will add to that.

      By 45, many women like sex a lot and are RISKY as hell to give your heart to. Let's face it, a woman can go 4 hours a day (more) if she enjoys it.

      Many other women dislike sex and you are looking at suffering in a sexless relationship or begging for it.

      Remember - 2 to 3% of children do NOT match the paternity of the father.

      And the legal system is setup all goofy so that another perfectly capable human being can have sex with you for 2 to 3 years and then take half of everything you own along with your heart.

      If you are a man of *any* means, unless you win the love lotto in your 20's, it is more fun, safer emotionally and financially to date/rent women by implying you are interested in commitment and shedding them off when they get too pushy. There are millions of (decent looking, kind) women who are way too easily attracted by a fairly tiny amount of money (like 2,400 to 4,800 bucks a year on gifts and stuff) and 4-5 hours of listening to their problems-- including a lot who are in relationships with other guys.

      And maintaining a solid relationship takes a good 30 hours a week-- if you can't hack that many hours, then have fun- get a girlfriend instead, party and do fun things. You'll always be pushing women away so many will be trying to land you.

      I think men and women are really not wired to stick together more than 7 to 10 years. I've read some articles implying women lose commitment when the kids are a bout 5-7 years old-- the possible reason being that at that age they could walk and forage their own food so a man isn't needed as much.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:From Agnes - With Love by psychicsword · · Score: 1

      Did you sign it Adios because your wife will kill you if she reads this comment?

    10. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Bombula · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You jest, but there is a fundamental asymmetry here between the sexes that really does pose a problem - at least in the short run. Men, broadly speaking, are sexually interested in women in a purely objective, physical sense. The sexual desires of women, on the other hand, tend to be much more subtle, nuanced, and involve the complexities of personality, social status, behavioral context, and many other non-physical factors. There are of course exceptions, and men of course want companionship as well as sex, but for men the act of sex can be teased out (no pun intended) from intimacy. That doesn't happen to nearly the same extent for women.

      The upshot is that it is possible to replicate the object of a man's sexual desires much more easily than the object of a woman's sexual desires, since a man's sexual desires are almost entirely physical. For a replicated male robot to be uber-sexy, it would have to be smart, funny, suave, and have high social status, wealth and power. Obviously, that may all be possible one day but we can all agree that that day is much, much farther off. In the meantime, the asymmetry is going to create a real problem for women.

      One caveat: this assumes that sexbots for men will become available sooner than perfect virtual reality. Once we have VR a la the Matrix, robots as sex-replacements will be moot anyway.

      --
      A-Bomb
    11. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      You will find at some point in time that you fall in love with a woman for more than her looks and ability and willingness to give you sex whenever you want. I know this sounds crazy but it's really true ( imo, though I'm only 18 so judge for yourself ),

      I find it somewhat of a mystery why anyone would think that the story is in the least unlikely. There are already people who have fallen in love with their sex dolls. These folk dress them, drive them to movies in their cars, etc. etc.

      Of course there are some folk who are going to prefer a robo-wife to the real thing, just like there are women today who prefer a vibrator. And there are going to be some folk for whom it isn't exactly a matter of choice, particularly as the supply of third world brides dries up.

      Rather more interesting is going to be the impact on prostitution law. We can imagine that some countries are going to have a liberal approach while others are going to be proscriptive.

      And that is before you consider the implications for blackmail. After all the dolls are going to have CCD devices for eyes, so how is anyone to know they are not recording?

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    12. Re:From Agnes - With Love by nomadic · · Score: 1

      For a replicated male robot to be uber-sexy, it would have to be smart, funny, suave, and have high social status, wealth and power.

      So we'll have to base them on me. I should probably give my contact info to the robotocists.

    13. Re:From Agnes - With Love by jamesh · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure why such a product doesn't exist yet... about 10 years ago I figured that the sex doll people would be building in a microphone and speaker and making a deal with the sex phone line people to give the doll a voice. It would be a great revenue model... charge $xxx for the doll up front, and then $xxx/minute to get a real girl (or a guy with a girly sounding voice) on the other end of the phone too.

      In fact these days i'm sure they could figure out a way of putting 'grope sensors' on the doll and hooking it up to the internet, so the person on the other end knows what you are currently up to and can provide appropriate feedback.

      Or maybe such a product already exists...

    14. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      just like the real wife - disinterested
      (but don't pinch her or she will leak)

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    15. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascinating! It's OnStar, but instead of a GM car, you get a doll named Star.

    16. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Men, broadly speaking, are sexually interested in women in a purely objective, physical sense. The sexual desires of women, on the other hand, tend to be much more subtle, nuanced, and involve the complexities of personality, social status, behavioral context, and many other non-physical factors. There are of course exceptions, and men of course want companionship as well as sex, but for men the act of sex can be teased out (no pun intended) from intimacy. That doesn't happen to nearly the same extent for women. This smacks of social conditioning. There's no real reason why this has to, or even ought to, be the case, it's merely the way that Western Christian society has developed. I've never seen any evidence to suggest that there's any fundamental biological reason for it that didn't seem specious or like it was attempting to justify or explain a preexisting social/cultural phenomenon.

      Bluntly -- in a world where you have birth control and have effectively separated the sexual decision from the reproductive one, there's no reason why male and female attitudes to sex necessarily would be any different.

      Aside from knee-jerk religious/cultural conservative opposition, I'm not sure why the sexual implications of human-like robots would be any more negative for women than they would be for men.
      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    17. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Bombula · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You've obviously never read anything about evolutionary psychology. A good place to start is The Moral Animal by Robert Right and The Third Chimpanzee and Why Sex Is Fun by Jared Diamond. Men and women have entirely different reproductive strategies for entirely biological reasons, and this is born out in their different sexual behaviors and desires. It's you, I'm afraid, who is suffering from 'social conditioning'.

      --
      A-Bomb
    18. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Xinef+Jyinaer · · Score: 1

      Sure those 10 things are great but what about companionship?

      --
      Some days I just get bored and Troll post all the memes I can think of...
    19. Re:From Agnes - With Love by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're obviously unaware that evolutionary psychology is pseudoscientific bullshit. For it to be a successful science, it would have to be able to make correct predictions about things the answers to which were not already known. Until then, it's right up there with Freudianism in the hierarchy of psychological BS.

      Maybe men and women have different reproductive strategies for entirely biological reasons -- though, given the increase in female promiscuity since the invention of birth control, the "entirely" part of that is pretty suspect -- and maybe it's all social conditioning. We don't know, and speculation from your pet pseudoscience doesn't really help.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    20. Re:From Agnes - With Love by eeyoredragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think there's a real problem for women at all, nor do I agree with this enormous asymmetry in the sexes regarding ... sex. My exposure to women has greatly eclipsed my exposure to other males, and I really don't see the mysteriousness and these great differences in sexuality guys (well, and women themselves) tend to attribute them. The only even remotely consistent difference I've seen is that many males have dominant type fantasies and vice versa in females. And obviously that varies enormously.

      You don't think women see some guy walk by and think about how "hot" he is? Or how good he might be in bed? Sometimes I wonder if guys think girls don't think this way to save their egos... If you think they don't, you should hang out with more of them on a friend basis.

      I mean, don't vibrators kinda blow away the whole "women can't experience sexual pleasure without amorphous attributes like humor, success, etc" theory? There's sex... and there's emotional intimacy. They're different things but they can be combined to create greater things... do men not feel this way?

    21. Re:From Agnes - With Love by operagost · · Score: 2, Funny

      This smacks of social conditioning. There's no real reason why this has to, or even ought to, be the case, it's merely the way that Western Christian society has developed.
      So, asian women just spread their legs for the first good-looking unemployed underachiever who walks by? Fabulous!
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    22. Re:From Agnes - With Love by freezingweasel · · Score: 1

      Once this becomes socially acceptable, who will care?

      Look how much flack Clinton got for Lewinsky. The problem was less that he did whatever, than that he didn't want to say what he did outright, and why for the love of our country couldn't the leader of the free world do better? Grab a supermodel! I'm sure one's willing, just to be able to say they did the president!

      Socially speaking, we're between ages. Many of us grew up wih parents who expected X, Y and Z, (wink wink nudge nudge, as everything they condemned was still going on) and a society now where darn near anything is permitted. In another generation or two sex and morality will be completely divorced, assuming our current economy continues raising generation after generation of the best possible consumers, whose immediate satisfaction urge skyrockets while more technology to make life easier than ever reduces the level of responsibility anyone feels to near zero. (Once machines do all the work, what are you responsible for?)

      > Rather more interesting is going to be the impact on prostitution law.
      And the other effects on society. Will rape go down when everyone's so experienced in things only robots can do that a regular human can't compete? Will a robot partner to keep previous criminals busy lower crime rates as they stay home?

    23. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Bombula · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      evolutionary psychology is pseudoscientific bullshit. For it to be a successful science, it would have to be able to make correct predictions about things the answers to which were not already known.

      By your lights, scientific inquiry into human behavior is impossible. But I'll be charitable enough to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't actually mean anything so asinine as to suggest that science can only be useful as a process of discovery and not as a means of explaining and predicting the phenomena we observe.

      It is clear that evolutionary biology offers by far the best platform for explaining human behavior currently available to scientific inquiry. It's validity as the force that shaped not only our bodies but our minds and therefore our behavior is absolutely undisputed in the scientific community, despite your ignorant histrionics bandying about the pejorative term 'pseudoscience'. As for our ability to test hypotheses and explain observations, you're obviously unaware of the studies in evolutionary behavior that confirm predictions made about humans by evolutionary theory that are NOT readily apparent via observation but in fact are only borne out by statistical analysis across large populations. You're obviously not aware of all of the findings predicted by evolutionary behavior theory that run contrary to intuition and common sense, which are again borne out only by statistical analysis. And you're obviously not aware of studies that have made observations in other species, both closely and distantly related to humans, that again make predictions about human behavior that are unintuitive but are nevertheless confirmed by statistical analysis.

      To give just one example, studies of eating habits in primates and other mammals as well as humans showed that omnivorous species avoided meat during the first stages of pregnancy. This gelled with observations of morning sickness in humans, and led to a prediction that certain chemicals conducive to bacterial and parasitic pathogens would provoke aversion in humans. This in turn led to the prediction that early during pregnancy the female body enters a state of immunosuppression. These predictions, which emerged directly from evolutionary behavior theory, were confirmed in studies of human populations.

      So while you're wallowing in the cool muck of your own ignorance, there are a few of us out here doing actual science. If you don't care to join us, or at least read about what we do, then it'd be better for everyone if you clapped that opinionated and woefully uninformed trap of yours shut.

      --
      A-Bomb
    24. Re:From Agnes - With Love by freezingweasel · · Score: 1

      Actually, this could be hooked to the net, where a new level of "social network" ala myspace, perhaps with the feedback system from ebay would let you find a partner from the people currently online. Each of you would have your movements control the other's doll for the most realistic experience possible. There'd be different sections for tastes, screamers vs moaners, rough vs soft, etc.

      Whether the web site is ever set up or not though, once tele-presence is developed enough for remotely "attending" meetings in person and gets cheap enough that it can be used in the home, remote sex is happening, officially or not.

    25. Re:From Agnes - With Love by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      Heh, wow; I seem to have hit a nerve there. I haven't encountered such pompous prose since I last watched /Frasier/.

      You subtly confused the issue here by providing an example from evolutionary /biology/, rather than evolutionary /psychology/, which is what I was criticizing. I'm not an anti-evolutionist, so you can't paint me as one and criticize those people instead. I do maintain that evolutionary psychology has not yet proven itself to be a successful scientific discipline.

      And I meant exactly what I said about science -- the criterion of a successful science is its ability to make correct predictions. After it can /do/ that, then you can go and try to use it to explain observed phenomena -- but, unless and until it can do that, you're no better than the ancient tribes who explained the observed phenomena of lightening by saying it was a dude throwing bolts down from the clouds.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    26. Re:From Agnes - With Love by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      To elaborate some:

      As far as science being able to explain human behavior, it's not really there yet. Psychology as a whole /sometimes/, just /barely/, makes it as a science, and the parts that do aren't really enough to form a coherent discipline able to predict human behavior. In 200 years, when neuroscientists create a complete and accurate model of the human brain inside a supercomputer, then we might have a science able to predict human behavior. But, we don't have a science able to predict most aspects of human behavior. Not yet.

      And, since I don't work in the field of evolutionary psychology (why would I? I think it's BS.), no, I don't really keep up with research in it. If the best example you can come up with plainly is from normal evolutionary biology instead of psychology, I remain convinced my time is better spent elsewhere.

      The claims evolutionary psychologists make that convince me that the field is not only immature, but populated by people with low scientific standards, are like those made by you in this Slashdot article. You observe (or guess at) an aspect of human behavior, and then attempt to construct a story about tribal conditions thousands of years ago that fits your observation. That's plainly back-asswards, and it's not science. Nothing you can do can make that science. A good example is the case about men liking women with large breasts. First, evolutionary psychologists just assumed this was true and postulated it was because large-breasted women produced more milk. Then, a study of men in different cultures strongly suggested that men liking women with large breasts was purely a Western cultural phenomenon, and the evolutionary psychologists said that this was explainable since even women with small breasts could produce /enough/ milk. Then, biologists (i.e., real scientists) found that there was, actually, a very weak biological component to men liking large-breasted women, but also that breast size didn't correlate at all with milk production! Evolutionary psychologists responded by saying that this was because large breasts were a good indicator of age, and hence fertility, since larger breasts will start to sag over time. Well, la-di-da then!

      Do you see what's wrong here? No matter what the facts, evolutionary psychologists can construct a plausible-sounding story to support them, and no one can go and test it. That's not science. It's storytelling. And storytellers pretending to be scientists are called bullshitters.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    27. Re:From Agnes - With Love by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      This smacks of social conditioning. There's no real reason why this has to, or even ought to, be the case, it's merely the way that Western Christian society has developed.
      So, asian women just spread their legs for the first good-looking unemployed underachiever who walks by? Fabulous! As a gaijin living in Japan, I can attest to this. I think what most Asian women are looking for, though, is simply men who aren't Asian.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    28. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Bombula · · Score: 1
      the criterion of a successful science is its ability to make correct predictions. After it can /do/ that, then you can go and try to use it to explain observed phenomena -- but, unless and until it can do that, you're no better than the ancient tribes who explained the observed phenomena of lightening by saying it was a dude throwing bolts down from the clouds.

      The theory of evolution itself provides a perfect example of why your personal definition of good science is flawed. Evolutionary theory existed for more than a century only as an explanation, with zero predictive power. Only with the advent of microbiology and genetics in the second half of the 20th Century did we actually get to see "evolution in action". Fundies, whom you sound just like, love to criticize evolutionary theory as 'bad science' or 'pseudoscience' for this very reason. We don't take them seriously, and we don't take people like yourself seriously, and the reason why is that explanatory power alone is enough to make something good science. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is widely regarded as the the most powerful and most profound scientific insight in the history of mankind. Yet if you were to be consistent, you would condemn it as pseudoscience because of the difficulty in testing its predictions over short spaces of time - the same difficulty faced by all of the evolutionary sciences, including human behavior aka psychology.

      The trouble with evolution is that it really can explain just about everything. Certainly it does, ultimately, explain everything, even if we see conflicting or diametrically opposed scenarios played out simultaneously. Far from being evidence that evolution is wrong, what this reveals is that reality is more complex than we care to admit: multiple strategies are used simultaneously, opposite approaches do work and often run complementary to one another. The complexity makes simplistic, one-dimensional explanations (such as why women have large breasts) likely to be partial explanations at best. Your example illustrates an important point I was making earlier: there is, in fact, no way to tease out psychology from biology - that is the whole crux of the science. You may think that by framing the question as, 'why do men like large breasts?' you're talking about psychology, but of course the same question can be framed as, 'why do women have large breasts?' Maybe this is a difficult concept for you, I don't know - you were confused as to whether a behavioral prediction (women will avoid certain foods during early pregnancy) constitutes psychology or biology. The point, in simple terms, is that evolutionary behavior emerges from biology - a point I made very early on. When you call that pseudoscience, you're right out on the thin ice with creationists.

      I'll end this exchange by offering what is, I hope, an example that will better illustrate the power of evolution to explain and predict human behavior than my previous one. Back in the 60s and 70s when scientists like EO Wilson were helping evolution establish itself as an explanatory platform for human behavior, biologists were learning interesting things about other animals' biology and behavior, including primates: that the physiological features of sexual dimorphism (difference in size between males and females) and testes size tended to correspond with certain reproductive strategies. High dimorphism and large testes correlated strongly with polyandry, or what we would call female promiscuity. In chimps, for examples, males are much larger than females and have massive testicles. The prevailing explanation for why is that males fight one another to have access to mates, and there is a great deal of competition between the sperm of different males within a female who has had sex with more than one partner in a short space of time. In species where monogamy is the dominant strategy, dimorphism is minimal and testes size is low. Humans are somewhere in th

      --
      A-Bomb
    29. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, my sister who is a genetic counselor in San Francisco said the statistic is that 10% of children are not genetically related to the reported father. Yikes!

    30. Re:From Agnes - With Love by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      "Why do men like large breasts?" is not the same question as "Why do women have large breasts?". Confusing these two issues suggests a misunderstanding of symbolic logic. The answers to these questions may be related, but the questions themselves are not equivalent.

      I'd like to point out how predictable and revealing it is that you used evolution's status as a science to support your own discipline: evolution can sometimes get into the same problem. That species evolve is a well-known scientific fact, and we know that species evolve with a general hill-climbing type strategy toward local maxima, and we can simulate this artificially. However, many times, the explanations evolutionary biologists come up with for /why/ species evolved in a certain manner /are/ often little more than guesswork -- guesswork that does not, in fact, qualify as science.

      Take your latest example, which is again from evolutionary biology, because it deals with behavior without regard to the mental states that accompany it, but you're getting a little warmer. You noticed a correlation between male testes size and female promiscuity in different species, hypothesized that this correlation might hold with humans, and were proven right. Good job; that's good science.

      But wait -- that's not all you did. You also wrote a story about how the reason for this correlation is that female promiscuity causes greater competition among sperm inside a female at the same time. Woops.

      Your story sounds really good -- so good that I intuitively think it's likely to be true. But, if you want to use science to support that story, you'd have to somehow do an experiment in which you artificially create female promiscuity and then watch to see if male testicle size increases over time. Until you do that, the story you wrote about this untested causation relationship is just plausible-sounding guesswork.

      Despite the tendency of evolutionary biologists to write these untestable but plausible-sounding stories to accompany their work, evolutionary biology does have predictive power. The theory of evolution can predict things we did not know before about the past instead of about the future -- it predicted that certain kinds of fossils would be discovered, the fossils that represented missing links in species' evolutionary change, and such fossils were. Evolutionary psychology doesn't have equivalent successes; it just has plausible-sounding stories. I don't expect a response to this because you said you were going to cowardly run away in your last response -- kooks often do that when their kookery is pointed out to them.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    31. Re:From Agnes - With Love by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "And I meant exactly what I said about science -- the criterion of a successful science is its ability to make correct predictions. After it can /do/ that, then you can go and try to use it to explain observed phenomena -- but, unless and until it can do that, you're no better than the ancient tribes who explained the observed phenomena of lightening by saying it was a dude throwing bolts down from the clouds."

      Well, it isn't scientific, but, I can definitely attest through my experience with a number of women, and those of my friends, and they DEFINITELY want different things out of sex and the relationship. I can't believe that so much of what we observe in them commonly, can be anything but biology driven. Men's and women's minds think differently, that is easily observable.

      I'd have a hard time believing that the same behavior observed in different cultures and continents, is all social engineering.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    32. Re:From Agnes - With Love by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      'why do women have large breasts?'

      So men will talk to them.

      :-)

      Sorry...too tempting of a set up to pass by!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    33. Re:From Agnes - With Love by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "There's sex... and there's emotional intimacy. They're different things but they can be combined to create greater things... do men not feel this way?"

      Short answer: No

      Very rarely with men, does emotional anything enter into the sex act. The old saying, women give men sex for love, and men give women love for sex, actually is not that far off from the truth.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    34. Re:From Agnes - With Love by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Sure those 10 things are great but what about companionship?"

      That's what friends are for.

      Why do you think we always want to get out to hang with 'the guys'.....THEY are our friends, and our companionship. We trust them, and like the same things they do. We have women around for sex.

      On a few occasions, we find women that are our friends too, but, that is rare.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    35. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Bombula · · Score: 1
      You've added nothing in your latest response, and so while I stand by my earlier decision to take the conversation no further, I can't resist making one more attempt to dispel your stubbornly persistent ignorance.

      While you've grudgingly acknowledged the value of explaining observed phenomena, you're still clumsily claiming that prediction of new phenomena alone is the gold standard by which science can be said to be science. You were wrong in the beginning, and are still wrong now.

      Scientific theories, as structures of logically coherent hypotheses, must agree with observed reality. That is all. The more they agree, the better we say they are and the more useful they tend to be at predicting future observations. So long as a scientific theory consistently offers a logically coherent explanation of observed reality, we give it credence until new evidence comes along that contradicts the theory. If ever such evidence comes along, or if a theory comes along that does a better job of explaining observed reality - better meaning it possesses greater elegance, comprehensiveness and simplicity which we lump together under the term 'parsimony' - we either modify the original theory or toss the theory out.

      Again, all a scientific theory must do in order to be science is logically and consistently explain observed reality, and - crucially - be willing to be subject to new evidence and continuous criticism. THAT, and that alone, is the scientific method. Countless theories have been refuted by new evidence. Countless new observations have required theories to be modified because they defied prediction. It happens every day. But before that happens, they ARE science so long as they are logical and open to new evidence and criticism, even if they later turn out to be wrong. Before we had better evidence, it was perfectly reasonable to posit a flat Earth, for example. The difference between science and your 'storytelling' is that science continuously improves itself through self-criticism. These theories are the 'stories' which you claim to be bullshit, from evolutionary biology to quantum mechanics and cosmology. Sadly, these 'stories' - these explanations of observed reality - are all we have. If it's all just bullshit to you, I suggest you consider a line of work either in the clergy or in math, the only field of science which can be said to ever actually 'prove' anything. You seem to think that a theory's ability to predict future observations 'proves' it to be correct, and that it must otherwise be false. In the rest of science, you never prove anything; you simply have theories - 'stories' - that explain what we see.

      One last time: a theory's ability to make predictions is icing on the cake; it is not a litmus test or a definitional criteria for science itself. My guess is that you're confusing testing with prediction. You don't need to be able to make predictions to test a theory. To test a theory, all you have to do is confirm that it squares with all existing observations and evidence. If it does so, it's a good theory; if it doesn't, it's probably wrong.

      --
      A-Bomb
    36. Re:From Agnes - With Love by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      > One last time: a theory's ability to make predictions is icing on the cake; it is not a litmus test or a definitional criteria for science itself.

      You have a weaker definition of what science is than I. My definition is the more common, and for good reason. With your definition, a simple list of all observed phenomena would be a perfect scientific theory. That's rather silly; such a list would add nothing to our understanding about the world. My definition excludes this silliness as a list like that would have no predictive power.

      Another advantage of the standard definition is that it excludes hand-wavy, plausible-sounding-but-untestable "theories". Good examples of these types of "theories" are intelligent design and evolutionary psychology. Both make claims that no one can really go out and disprove, and both can trivially explain all observed phenomena. With intelligent design, the explanation for everything is pretty much, "God did it.". With evolutionary psychology, you can make up any number of stories about what life may have been like for humans thousands of years ago that could explain why evolutionary pressure led to such-and-such observed phenomena. But, both of these "theories" are pretty much crap. And my definition can rule them out, while yours can't: neither of these theories have any predictive power, so they have no value as science.

      So no, Bombula, I'm not ignorant, and I'm not wrong. You just have a different definition of science from the rest of the world. This doesn't mean you're wrong, but, as I've demonstrated above, the normal definition for science brings with it some distinct advantages, so you should give some serious consideration to adopting it yourself. This thread is starting to get off-topic, but I'd be happy to continue this discussion on one of our journal pages if you'd like.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    37. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I heard those figures once but the only published figures I could find when I was posting was 2-3% on infidelity sites.

      I think our current social and moral rule are set up for a time when women needed a man's support. Now that they do not in many cases, there just isn't enough "glue" to hold relationships together.

      So the guy ends up with 10-12 years of child support and seeing his kids 6 days a month and the joy of having another man raise his children. And that is in a state without alimony.

      Meanwhile, a huge number of women (in happy relationships) are very easily attracted to men who are good looking and/or successful. They cheat like hell and society still treats them like angels. The rules are all goofy and anti-male currently.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    38. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Scientific theories, as structures of logically coherent hypotheses, must agree with observed reality. That is all. The more they agree, the better we say they are and the more useful they tend to be at predicting future observations. So long as a scientific theory consistently offers a logically coherent explanation of observed reality, we give it credence until new evidence comes along that contradicts the theory. If ever such evidence comes along, or if a theory comes along that does a better job of explaining observed reality - better meaning it possesses greater elegance, comprehensiveness and simplicity which we lump together under the term 'parsimony' - we either modify the original theory or toss the theory out. That may be your definition of science, but since I don't see any way of quantifying "parsimony" I think it's edging very close to being a crock. The predictive ability of a theory is the sole and golden standard by which it is judged. It's elegance and 'parsimony' are the icing on the cake.

      Theories which explain things but do not offer predictions are intellectual masturbation at best, religions at worst. Until you can make predictions and verify them with experiments, a theory has very little value. In the past we have seen numerous theories which looked elegant on paper destroyed by the whims of reality -- science has little place for elegance except insofar as it is indicative of truth.

      This is a problem that many scientists, physicists (my field) in particular, get hung up on. Theories and mathematics are simply frameworks for understanding theories and making predictions. They are ways of modeling reality, and hopefully making useful predictions, nothing more. The universe doesn't care about elegance, and the universe is not driven by equations -- the equations and theories exist only to model and predict reality. They do not drive it.
      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    39. Re:From Agnes - With Love by ultranova · · Score: 1

      But wait -- that's not all you did. You also wrote a story about how the reason for this correlation is that female promiscuity causes greater competition among sperm inside a female at the same time. Woops.

      Your story sounds really good -- so good that I intuitively think it's likely to be true.

      I think that there's a simpler explanation: if females are promiscuous, then males have an opportunity to mate with more females than they otherwise would, and need bigger testicles to produce enough sperm to get a decent chance of impregnating them.

      --

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

    40. Re:From Agnes - With Love by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If you are a man of *any* means, unless you win the love lotto in your 20's, it is more fun, safer emotionally and financially to date/rent women by implying you are interested in commitment and shedding them off when they get too pushy.

      Don't make false promises, especially in sexual matters. It hurts the other person a lot, and the chances are pretty good that they or some friend or relative of theirs will come after you sooner or later. Simply pay a hooker; that way, you get what you want, they get what they want, and no one gets hurt.

      --

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

    41. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      You know ... after seeing several of my friends shredded and humans wonderful ability to lie while thinking they are telling the truth, I hardened up a lot and stopped being such a soft eyed romantic. I'm always clear up front that I'm "dating around" and I'm always clear up front that if I ever found the right woman, I'd settle down. Both statements *are* true.

      However, the reality is that the right woman is very elusive while "right now" women are extremely common once you get in your thirties. I've found women like a guy who is fun to be with. They will leave or cheat on their regular guy to be with a fun guy. I've been on the receiving and giving end of that equation. Maybe a third of people (men/women) are worth trusting further than you can toss then when you have a back injury but the two thirds of untrustworthy ones are usually a lot more fun to hang with then the trustworthy party pooper types.

      I've got maybe 15-20 years left on the planet, and how I behave, based on my experience so far a lot of attitudes are just either religious or hollywood bullshit. They are not the way people really work.

      Women and Men really will leave for a better qualified mate a huge amount of the time.
      Women and Men really will cheat if they can. Frequently. Even pastors and church secretaries.

      At least I'm up front about where I'm headed. The worst liars are the people who lie to themselves-- you believe they are telling the truth and they rip your guts out.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    42. Re:From Agnes - With Love by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You know ... after seeing several of my friends shredded and humans wonderful ability to lie while thinking they are telling the truth, I hardened up a lot and stopped being such a soft eyed romantic.

      Soft eyed romantic ? You said that it's okay to lie - imply commitment without any actual intention of having any - to get sex. I said that this is wrong, since it hurts the people you lie to; and you seem to agree, or at least your comment about "shredded" friends imply that.

      I'm always clear up front that I'm "dating around" and I'm always clear up front that if I ever found the right woman, I'd settle down. Both statements *are* true.

      Then you aren't following your own advice, which was to lie to get what you want.

      At least I'm up front about where I'm headed.

      If you are "up front" about your intentions, then congratulations. But you specifically gave advice to lie about them, and that is wrong, no matter how many excuses you make.

      Besides, in my experience, any sentence beginning with "At least I'm" is an attempt to justify the evil the speaker does by comparing it to presumably greater evil.

      The worst liars are the people who lie to themselves-- you believe they are telling the truth and they rip your guts out.

      And that, of course, makes it okay to lie to get your way ?

      --

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

    43. Re:From Agnes - With Love by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Scientific theories, as structures of logically coherent hypotheses, must agree with observed reality. That is all. [...]

      To borrow from Eliezer Yudkowsky, the strength of a theory is not in what it can explain, but in what it cannot explain. In other words, it has to be able to say: "This potential observation is just not possible."

      Anyone can explain observed reality. Heck, astrologers could use astrology to "explain" everything. Science is supposed to be something more.

    44. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      >Then you aren't following your own advice, which was to lie to get what you want.

      Okay... let's see, I could start the first date off with "You know there is a 99% chance you will not be a person I can commit to". I know it is likely that things won't work out. It is a lie of omission to not start every date by saying that I'm pretty jaded and fairly sure this will not work out for marriage. So yes, I'm lying-- and hoping this might be the 1% of the time (realistically the .1%) that it might be the right person. I allow them to think whatever they want.

      >And that, of course, makes it okay to lie to get your way ?
      Everyone lies. 3 year olds like-- successfully-- to their parents all the time. The biggest lie is that we do not lie.

      >Besides, in my experience, any sentence beginning with "At least I'm" is an attempt to justify the evil the speaker does by comparing it to presumably greater evil.

      Okay-- I'm evil... evvveeeeel. Or I'm more self aware that I'm doing the same thing everyone else is doing while allowing themselves to ignore their own bad behavior.

      >And that, of course, makes it okay to lie to get your way?

      This is a tricky part. It makes me feel very dark to feel this way. But having seen the full breadth of human nature-- if i have to choose between lying and being happy for several years or telling to truth and being alone and being unhappy for several years, I will lie. Be it "no- you look great in those pants" to more serious stuff. I would like to be noble and pure again like I was until my mid 30's but I can't. I'm jaded and bitter about women (and men) at this point. I've had too much experience with people. They go for *fun* *now* over commitment every time they are given a choice. And then they rationalize about how they were treated badly by their husband or wife so they could screw around. Or how they had to do "what their heart wanted".

      I was nice, committed, truthful-- and it was abused horribly. I finally gave up and joined the rat pack. Unfortunately my eyes are open while they are all still successfully in self-denial so I can see what I'm doing. I don't like it but I stopped getting my soul ripped out, suicidal depression, and abandoned.

      I still make mistakes. The last time I went from dating 3-4 women and having a good time to committing to just one woman three years ago and who was romanced away by a wealthy guy during lunch working hours... she loved him AND me. Wanted to keep both of us. He lasted about 15 minutes in the sack but had a couple million bucks. I was the boy toy who could give her what she needed physically and emotionally (until she screwed it all up) but I didn't have a ranch. Maybe I'll get over being bitter about it before I die.

      I do not think so tho.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    45. Re:From Agnes - With Love by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      On second thought, I think the 10% cuckoldry thing was a valid example of science -- they didn't know the true number before making a guess based on other species' testes/cuckoldry correlations. However, I don't think there was much precision in the guess, beyong that it would be between two values, and I don't know enough to evalute whether you need the unique contributions of evolutionary psychology, as opposed to ordinary evolutionary theory, to make that prediction.

    46. Re:From Agnes - With Love by Bombula · · Score: 1
      There may be some holes in your logic. Predicted phenomena, once observed, become ... wait for it ... observed phenomena. So a theory that agrees with all observed phenomena with maximum parsimony without making new predictions is ... useless? According to you and the other responder, apparently so. Hrrm. Houston, we have a problem.

      Maybe this mindset where prediction is the 'gold standard' is peculiar to physics, I don't know. In other, less abstract and more tangible scientific fields the paramount thing seems to be for a theory to gel with all existing evidence. If it does so better than any other theory, we lend it credence. Appealing to nonsense like Intelligent Design as bullshit explanations is nonsensical precisely because they are so much less parsimonious, so much less logical, and so much less in agreement with all observations and evidence than good scientific theory. Logically, a theory that is in perfect agreement with observed reality, predictions aside, is going to be unavoidably credible. I'm not sure why this is so difficult a concept for folks to understand.

      --
      A-Bomb
    47. Re:From Agnes - With Love by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Imagine the AI needed for that to happen considering we all fail with it ourself.

    48. Re:From Agnes - With Love by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Just build a neural network for it and train it with data about my (and some of my fellow slashdoters) actions and let it know they all leads to failure. That must create the ultimate pickup/don juan/... robot.

      / The (quite hot and intelligent but still social failure) 28 year old virgin (, picky aswell)

    49. Re:From Agnes - With Love by aliquis · · Score: 1

      That's what I'm counting/hope for.

      Any asian girls on slashdot? You know my e-mail! (Added bonus: I'm not christian.)

  33. Feeling loved by wombatmobile · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is easy to love someone or something.

    It is harder to feel loved.

    And harder still to feel loved by something you know does not think or feel.

    For that reason, humans will continue to feel loved (or not loved) by other humans more easily than they can connect with inanimate objects.

    1. Re:Feeling loved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If these robots can pass the Turing test then who is to say that they cannot think or feel?

    2. Re:Feeling loved by celle · · Score: 1
      but which would be easier to get along with?

      ---

      chobits

    3. Re:Feeling loved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is harder to feel loved.

      And harder still to feel loved by something you know does not think or feel.
      This is quite true. However, those of us who have reached the unfortunate realization that we are not ever going to be loved by anyone, will take the robot sex and be glad we can get that much. It's better than the nothing we have now.
    4. Re:Feeling loved by parnasus · · Score: 1

      And harder still to feel loved by something you know does not think or feel. For that reason, humans will continue to feel loved (or not loved) by other humans more easily than they can connect with inanimate objects. I think you may be missing the greater point though: What happens when you cannot distinguish the human from the robot?

      We have the Turing Test for gauging the ability of a device to simulate human responses. A corollary to that would be some Levy Litmus of Love for determining a machines ability to mimic emotional responses. If you never knew the person you loved was a robot, does that make your love any less valid?

      --
      --If you code for the exceptions, the rules fall into place
    5. Re:Feeling loved by justinlindh · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you hit the nail on the head with this.

      However, the type of people who typically believe they feel "love" for a fictional character/doll/piece of machinery may find it easier to trust them. I think the majority of these people have social issues, maybe including social anxiety or paranoia. A relationship with something that won't judge them is appealing to them.

      I recently watched a documentary about people who own Real Dolls. They personify their dolls as if they are actual people; holding conversations, hanging out with, getting "intimate" with them, Most of these men explained that they're simply unappealing to women, and while they'd prefer the company of an actual person, the doll is better than nothing to them. One of the men did describe how he'd been abandoned and treated in ways that drove him to the dolls, and claims he prefers the dolls because he can't trust a human. He also claimed to love several of his possessions (car, guns, sword).

      I guess my point is that this cascading logic for love isn't universal, though I'd agree it applies to the majority. Some people will fall in love with an inanimate object MUCH faster than they would with a human being.

    6. Re:Feeling loved by tolleyl · · Score: 1

      I do not agree that it is hard to feel loved by something that does not think or feel. The easiest way to see this is to look at people who own pets like snakes. The 'algorithm' that a snake runs on doesn't have what we consider emotions, and yet many of these people will insist that their snake 'loves' them. Humans have a very strong tendency to attribute complex reasons for simple acts, such as assuming that a bad harvest meant you didn't sacrifice enough animals to your deity, or that when your husband gives you a monosyllable answer that it means something other than you are interrupting a TV show. I have seen adaptive video games where the computer learns your fighting style, and after a while people generally think that the observed behavior is much more complicated and meaningful than it really is. With some appropriate marketing hype, you can give people an 'excuse' to believe that their love-bot actually has feelings and they will believe it.

    7. Re:Feeling loved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, they are animate objects, just not sentient.
      The latter may have changed by the time fully functional "sexbots" are realized, but the end result may still be as sexy to most people as a cuttlefish would be due to the "uncanny valley" issue.

    8. Re:Feeling loved by bythescruff · · Score: 1

      It's quite easy to fool yourself. Especially when you *want* to believe something.

      --
      Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
    9. Re:Feeling loved by Googlian · · Score: 1

      perfect .. i believe in this

    10. Re:Feeling loved by freedumb2000 · · Score: 1

      Falling in love with inanimate objects is a phenomenon called objectum-sexual: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,482192,00.html/

  34. People's need for electrifying sex by NetSettler · · Score: 1

    People often overlook things they care about when there is no risk they won't get it. Look at the dating sites. People make a list of what they like, then they date people who match. Then they realize what they should have listed.

    Then again, in an overpopulated society, I definitely would not want to encourage more people to be breeders, and I see lot of good in this notion, even if I think it won't solve all the problems people have. Overcoming people's basic animal and getting more in control of explosive population growth may be a prerequisite for a robot-based society, which simply doesn't function well with large numbers of people. And having people voluntarily fail to breed is the least invasive way of reducing population numbers.

    The worst case, of course, would be that each of these robot-human pairs would feel a need to have a human child, which would actually make the situation worse. But I doubt that will happen.

    Btw, for an excellent and entertaining treatment of this robot love issue, see the underrated B-movie Cherry 2000.

    --

    Kent M Pitman
    Philosopher, Technologist, Writer

    1. Re:People's need for electrifying sex by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Society is not over populated.

      Not by any measure.

      Important lesson from that movie: When creating a robot that does dishes, and has sex, make it water tight.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:People's need for electrifying sex by UttBuggly · · Score: 1

      ...could be easily fulfilled with a robot.

      Especially if there's a short in "Betty" or "Billy" somewhere.

      "911...state the nature of your emergency"

      "Uh, my neighbor screamed something like OMIGOD, then all the lights in the neighborhood went out. Now, I smell roasted nerd coming from his house"

      --
      I am my own gestalt.
  35. Or a sci-fi movie by crow · · Score: 1

    That's the idea behind the movie Cherry 2000.

  36. I for one welcome.. by Araxen · · Score: 1

    our Cylon Overlords version 1.0

    1. Re:I for one welcome.. by damuhatori · · Score: 1

      There are many copies. And they have a Plan.

  37. I am not looking forward to... by pizzach · · Score: 1

    ...the day that I first see a robot with a hard-on. It's always a bit awkward saying you're not gay to man or beast or robot or whatever. Not that I know about the last two.

    --
    Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    1. Re:I am not looking forward to... by pizzach · · Score: 1

      Somehow that come out more questionable than I thought. Time to hide under a rock!

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
  38. 50 years? Try 50 minutes by QCompson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Toss a Teddy Ruxpin speaker into a Real-Doll and I'm good to go!

  39. PUNCHLINE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

    "...Oh I forgot to warn you. His Arse is a pencil sharpner!"

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  40. Oddly appropriate... by SharpFang · · Score: 1
    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  41. Obligatory comments seem lacking... by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

    Where are the comments about how it's already happening? Who among us *hasn't* sleep with a computer in their bed that they loved? One time my friends piled all my programming books on top of me when I passed out. What happened? I slept great and woke up with the feeling a loving aura next to me. Yes, C++ and I love each other and care deeply for each other. Same goes for my computers. I love them. I haven't really *made* love to them since I can't afford to buy a Sex Drive(TM), but these are issues we're working through...

    -Tim

    ps. I guess I'm a polygamist because of how my love is spread...

    1. Re:Obligatory comments seem lacking... by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to inform you, but C++ has been cheating on you. She was with every one of my coworkers, male and female, last week. You don't mind sharing do you?

  42. Crocodylus Pontifex by DaFallus · · Score: 1

    I wonder what various religions would have to say about this. We already know that the Space Pope does not approve.

    --
    No one cares what your captcha was

    Houston TX, USA
  43. Robots falling in love with you? by arakis · · Score: 1

    In a word: Presence

  44. The Future of L[awsuits] and Sex by peipas · · Score: 1

    I don't want my wang anywhere near a power source strong enough to power a robot.

    1. Re:The Future of L[awsuits] and Sex by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I don't know, their computers weren't THAT bad!

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  45. The future is now. The future is bunk. by sm62704 · · Score: 1
    I submitted a /. journal with this comment's subject title as its title, and part of it pertains to this subject. Here is an excerpt from the linked journal

    You may live in a ten by ten foot cube that appears to be the whole universe to you, and you will have no way of telling that you are not in fact outside, but imprisoned in your little cell, never meeting another real human, but interacting with robotic simulations that you will believe are human.

    It may get to the point that whoever is in charge (and there have always been power-hungry busybodies) will control your reproduction, with a robotic humanoid that is indistinguishable from a human collecting your semen for whatever mate they deem most appropriate, or taking semen collected from a male in this manner and artificially inseminating you with it from the robot you think is your husband. The child you think you are raising may well be a little robot, while the real child is brought up by the robots with whatever ethics the overlords wish.

    If someone finds that they are in a robot society, they may try to hack the system. They may be killed for their troubles; in fact, anyone might be killed at any time and nobody would know, since nobody will really be interacting with real humans, only robotic copies of them.
    The journal starts out by pointing out that futurists have historically been consistantly wrong, and the reasons thet their predictions never pan out.

    -mcgrew
    Tis the season to commit suicide is not a funny one.
    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  46. 3000 A.D. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its already illegal. What are you people talking about?

  47. Not far fetched at all... by sponglish · · Score: 1

    In fifty years robots will morph their shapes to match desires of the moment, exude pheromones tailored to the individual human, and use psychology to be the perfect companion. The question isn't whether humans will learn love their robot better halves (that's nearly guaranteed), but will artificial insemination become the primary method of reproduction. Future births may consist of men copulating with robots that cryostore the semen for later use, then, as dictated by the Junior Anti-Sex League, said sperm will be combined with carefully selected ova in artificial wombs for the perfect test-tube baby. It'll be a vast improvement over the Orgasmatron, because you'll never need to leave home.

    --
    "I improvise. It's my greatest talent. I prefer situations to plans..." --Wintermute, William Gibson's "Neuromancer"
  48. Sadly... by framauro13 · · Score: 1

    ...it's probably true. I mean, how many girl-trekkies do you know who are infatuted with Data from TNG?

    --
    In an effort to conform with internet communication standards, please note that the above comment is 100% biased opinion
    1. Re:Sadly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better question might be; how many girl trekkies do you know? if >=1 let me know please!

    2. Re:Sadly... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Why is it sad? If it makes people happy, that's not a reason to be sad, now is it?

      What will be sad is the inevitable jealousy that follows. Just like men are jealous of their girlfriend's vibrator, and women are so jealous that the men can't even have their own doll, I predict that there will be few human-to-human relationships where a robot is allowed in as a companion.

      Thus, robots will probably be almost entirely for singles, just like dolls are today. But they won't have a chance of becoming too popular, because legislators are almost always both married and religious. I predict that love robots will quickly become outlawed -- at least here in the US. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there's senators that already have a just-in-case bill already written.

  49. Watch out for computers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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...

  50. On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'll have sex with clones, cyborgs, Replicants and androids. Individually or in groups.

    But NO ROBOTS!

    Half to draw the line somewhere...

  51. Human? Robot? The difference will get smaller. by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 1

    I think we can take this a little further,

    When does a human stop being a human and does it become a robot? Or a subform of one of the two?

    Already we can artificially replicate large parts of the human body.
    I can easily imagine that in 50 to 100 years from now we can replace any part of the body for a custom machine made part whenever needed or wanted.
    New heart? check, New legs? check, does your stomach hurt? here, have another.
    We might run into a bit of trouble with the brain but I dare to bet we can come pretty close to a artificial human brain in that time-span.

    In that light I can imagine you could take a real human being and alter or rebuild that human completely with man-made materials.
    Is it still a human in that case? or a Cyborg, or a Robot?

    If you used to love that human, could you still love it when it's the same human but in a artificial form?

    --
    Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
  52. Re:50 years? Try 50 minutes by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

    I just want to say that I'd kill everyone in this thread to give you a mod point :-)

  53. Thoughts on David Levy by pokerdad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So British AI researcher David Levy somehow got involved in the field of robotics without ever reading/viewing any of the hundreds of pieces of sci-fi on this exact topic (ie. he thinks this is an original idea of his)? Or perhaps he is aware of the sci-fi, but is egotistical enough to think that a researcher talking nebulously about the far future is somehow different than sci-fi.

    1. Re:Thoughts on David Levy by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      ...or he is trying to draw a salary from a lonely venture capitalist who has never read sci-fi...

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:Thoughts on David Levy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is different from any other researcher how?

    3. Re:Thoughts on David Levy by julesh · · Score: 1

      Ego might be more like it. See, for example, his Wikipedia article. It takes a lot of ego to claim that no computer chess program will be able to beat you for ten years, even when you know (as Levy did at the time - he was already well known for his reasearch on computer chess) how fast they were improving. The fact that he was right doesn't really make it any better.

  54. And what happens when illusion breaks? by misterooga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you swap it in for better one? From iLoverGiga to iLoverTouch? Replace it with last good memory?

    What if you get into fights? Go to 'hospital' and improve personality?

    Granted, it will be cheaper(?) and/or easier to 'improve' and 'repair' the lover, once you bring back the dead lover one too many times, the illusion will break, I think.

    There is a reason why toys can't replace pets. For every person who will never adopt one, I am certain there is another who can't live without them for their love and personality.

  55. My God! by Withen · · Score: 1

    My God! He never took middle school hygiene. He never saw the propaganda film.

    DON'T DATE ROBOTS!

  56. one word: by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    ZARDOZ

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  57. Already happening in some edge cases by caywen · · Score: 1

    I watched a Japanese TV program about this guy who fell in love with a life-like sex doll. Incredibly, he never actually had sex with it - he actually simply fell in love with it and went to visit it often (at the store) to just kind of be with it. I know he's likely mentally ill, but I think it shows the capability is there. Also, there are people who fell in love with video game and cartoon characters. So, in terms of human capability of falling in love with non-living things, the bar is already pretty low. That said, I have never EVER touched my Roomba in an inappropriate way.

  58. Perversion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder: If sex with robots becomes acceptable, will forms of perversion (e.g. bestiality) become acceptable as long as it is with robots?

    1. Re:Perversion by digitig · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that under UK law it would be illegal if the robot looked like a minor. Would they have to come with certificates saying "This robot was modelled on somebody aged 18 or over"?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  59. I can see it already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Please insert floppy..."
    Oh, I can feel the luv'ing

  60. robot sex aynone? by Nicotine___123 · · Score: 1

    sigh, next we will be talking about robot sex

    1. Re:robot sex aynone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we're going from wanting to see girl on girl to robot on robot action?

  61. Duh! by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

    I think 50 years is, well, kind of short sighed. If you look at sites like "realdoll" (you add the com and www), and the recent work done in facial expression on robots, all you need to do is add an erotic eliza program, good speech synthesizer, and a pheromone dispenser and the guys will be in love.

    Sorry, ladies, robots ain't fixing your car or computer for a while, so you'll have to find a way to pry a guy away from his perfect robot girl.

  62. Re:50 years? Try 50 minutes by 93,000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Hi, I'm Teddy Ruxpin. Can you and I be friends with benefits?"

    eww.

  63. I can see it now... by spungo · · Score: 1

    ... me chatting up a bot somewhere, and it says: "Speak unto the digit-bearing appendage -- the aural orifice is disinclined to register your speech." Man, can't even get laid in Bot world.

  64. Fender Bender by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 0

    That's sick, dude...

  65. Every nerd's dream by dgun · · Score: 1

    By the laws of the universe, a Star Trek related article is soon to follow.

    --
    FAQs are evil.
  66. I, for one... by quangdog · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one welcome our sex deprived robot overlords...

  67. Not surprising by RyoShin · · Score: 1

    How many people look at fictional characters (from games, movies, anime, even some cartoons) as sexually enticing even if not romantically? Hell, Esurance has Erin Esurance for their "sex sells" model, rather than a real female.

    I can easily see a market where you have RealDoll++ outfitted with personalities and looks of fictional characters. Yes, that includes Seven of Nine.

    See the Futurama episode "I Dated A Robot" (in which Fry falls in love with a Lucy Lu-bot) for more information.

    Also see Schediaphilia.

    1. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Hell, Esurance has Erin Esurance for their "sex sells" model, rather than a real female.

      She also serves as one of the funniest examples of Rule 34, ever. I'll never see those commercials the same way again.

  68. 7 of 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a huge crush on 7's hooters.

    1. Re:7 of 9 by Who235 · · Score: 2, Funny

      So you had a crush on the 2 of 7 of 9?

  69. Fembots.... yummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have not problems with robots as long as they look like this... http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/t212058p135/?p=3098458&highlight=Jennifer+Connelly+as+a+fembot#RR

  70. Apparently they've never heard of by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 1

    Electric Gonorrhea, the noisy killer!

    --
    God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
  71. one generation left for humanity... by big_paul76 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Scott Adams said something about 'as soon as robot sex or virtual reality becomes cheaper than dating, humanity has ~1 generation left'.

    --
    The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
  72. Re:50 years? Try 50 minutes by mpeg4codec · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh god I thought only Penny Arcade could ruin my childhood memories of Teddy Ruxpin. Now Slashdot too?!?

  73. Wait until you get older by Awful+Truth · · Score: 1

    Hell, I know people who've fallen in love with a well-designed coffee table.

  74. Looks like it's time to by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

    start buying up property in the Uncanny Valley before the rush.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  75. Sleeper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is supposed to be a new idea? Pfft.

    Woody Allen already covered this in a movie from 1973:

    Sleeper.

    Worth a rental if you haven't seen it.

  76. Competing with robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they start making man-bots with real emotional responses and custom-sized parts. Does this mean I will start getting even more emails about that "special part" enlargement to compete with the man-bots? Perhaps emails that claim to teach me to feel?

    We have to take pills via shady internet dealers, all a robot does is visit the mechanic.

  77. Reproduction by skeftomai · · Score: 1

    I'm sure this would be good for the survival of the species.

  78. We have a contingency by mordenkhai · · Score: 1

    We are in luck as there are two facts of life that will likely protect us: 1: If men cant behave that way as it is, then lets face it we aren't capable of creating robots who can. 2: The women who are capable of programming the robots who can, are also nerds and are unlikely to understand a non nerd womans needs, once the robot starts making physics jokes it'll be returned. 3: Luckily enough women out there still like men who are bad for them and the legal liability of those robots would be too high to make them worth producing.

  79. You know I hate to ask ... by smcdow · · Score: 1

    ... But are 'friends' electric?
    Only mine's broke down
    And now I've no one to love

    If you don't get the reference, then you're just too young!

    --
    In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
  80. "Dildonics" by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    . .... Hawhawhawhawhawhawhaw!

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:"Dildonics" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Nano-dildoic.

      Hmmm I don't think that would sell.

      Unless it's nanites that increase a womans sensitivity.

      Maybe that was what makes the orgasmatron work.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  81. probably needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something like this is needed after things such as goatse and http://vumit.com/ turned internet users asexual :/

  82. Sex? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    It'll be a lot less than 50 years in some parts of the world. Assuming of course that you give the robot a fleece and make it go BAAAA!!!! Just kidding :)

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  83. Re:Futurama Said it best-SAY THE REST by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Funny

    My wife it nuts.

    And Bolts!

    (P.S. a couple of my favorite Internet authors, Elf Sternberg and DB_Story, have been writing about these types of relationships for years now.)

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  84. Author by ed.markovich · · Score: 1

    I heard the author interviewed on the radio once - he was a total bore and he seemed to have no real insight or depth to his statements. I didn't really get the sense that he was dumbing it down for the radio audience - rather he seems to have very flat and one dimensional in his thoughts. He didn't say anything that wasn't an obvious extension of current technology and trends - and nothing that hasn't been part of SciFi culture for decades. Perhaps the book is different/better but based on this interview, I have no reason to think so.

  85. Something drastic: paycheck by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    >Now, if robots can be more emotionally responsive than men, will men do something drastic to compete with robots?

    I still have the paycheck.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  86. Anyone who can't form a relationship with a human by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Will die off. They are self selecting their genes out of the pool.

    That includes "nerds" who can't get a date or people who fall in love with a robot. I encourage you to do so. It will give my progeny/genes more resources to play with.

    --
    Deleted
  87. NYC Museum of Sex by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Had a room of dildotic sex machines. Some were pretty elaborate.

  88. Score -101 Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    There are exactly 10 kinds of people: those who know binary, and those who don't. And there is exactly 01 kind of slashdot reader. Those who have already heard this joke 1111101000 times.
    1. Re:Score -101 Redundant by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      No there are 10 kinds of slashdot readers, those who have heard this tired old joke and those who are still wet behind the ears. Never underestimate the power of an old joke when talking to young people!

      I see the mods are young...

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  89. DON'T DATE ROBOTS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He never took middle school hygiene. He never saw the propaganda films.

  90. Cherry 2000 by Mille+Mots · · Score: 1

    Everything you ever needed to know about falling in love with robots is contained in Cherry 2000.

    --
    No sig today. Maybe sig tomorrow.

  91. Isn't that what: by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 1

    BladeRunner was about? Hmmmmmm reminds me I should watch that movie again...

    --
    To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
  92. end of humanity by Techx9 · · Score: 0

    robot sex will be the end of humanity, since men will no longer want real "flawed" women and will be able to customize and order their most perfect mate, completely flawless, never sags, never bitches at you, and thus children will no longer be born. the end.

  93. The off switch by Control-Z · · Score: 1

    The best part about sex with fembots is the "off" switch. Then you can just wheel her into a closet until next time.

  94. No procreation. by DarkLegacy · · Score: 1

    If all males are procreating with female robots all day on the planet, and all of the females are procreating with the male robots on the planet, then no ACTUAL procreation is happening; thereby reducing the human population count severely each generation, and perhaps within 300 years, the human race will not exist anymore.

    Or perhaps, this may be a blessing - and a way to reduce the drastically increasing population counts on Earth. You know, because we're on the brink of overpopulation? (Japan and China being some of the most densely populated places on Earth, forcing families to only have 1 child, or pay extra for more..)

    Food for thought. :)

    --
    127.0.0.1
  95. The future may not be the one imagined in slash. by vorlich · · Score: 1

    You might want to consider her ways http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consider_Her_Ways

    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
  96. Then they ask the fatal question by sconeu · · Score: 1

    "Does this RAM upgrade make me look fat?"

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  97. Why is this news? by jamietre · · Score: 1

    People already fall in love with cars and boats, a robot seems a no brainer.

  98. To paraphrase Brian Posehn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm more apt to imagine Iraqi-porn fetishists in 50 years.

    Hell, it worked with Japan, didn't it?

  99. Perpetually not there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, I figure in fifty years I'll join the mile high club with the robot chaffier driving my flying car. And it had better bring it's own protection. LOL

  100. Caveats by eulernet · · Score: 1

    I think this will reduce even further the natality in rich countries.

    On the contrary, in the poor countries, human reproduction will continue to grow at an exponential rate.

    Sincerely, I just hope the software will NEVER be written by Microsoft, since a bug will be deadly (at least for men's parts).

  101. I for one... by monopole · · Score: 1

    ...Welcome our new Chobit overlords!

    Gotta put the reset switch somewhere else 'tho.

  102. get it laid it to rest by PMuse · · Score: 1

    Finally, a chance for to prove or disprove the things that the feminists among us have been arguing about for the last hundred years or so! For example, assuming that there exists a reasonably competent sex-bot, so that a woman is not needed for a man to get a reasonably good physical release, we can learn the answers to:

    1. Does he really love me or is he just using me for sex? (solved)
    2. Why don't men treat women as equals? (no more hiding behind the old objectification defense)
    3. What do men really want from a sex partner? (scary)

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  103. Reminds me of a science fiction novel by PaulGaskin · · Score: 1

    Maybe someone can remember the title or author, but it was about a man having intercourse with a coin-operated, robotic hooker. When he ran out of money, it clamped onto him and wouldn't let go.

    --
    Freedom is free.
  104. What's the big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the big deal?
    We'll be able to let anyone have their fantasies (or just find a mate or love or whatever you wish to call it), peacefully change our reproductive path as a species to a controlled birth one - preferrably one where society is ultimately responsible for each and every birth (and no one risks being birthed into a living hell; and we didn't have to pull any crazy fascist stuff to get it like that!), lower if not annihilate every crime based on lust... I mean seriously.

    This sounds great to me.
    Why are people worried. What we have now sucks.

    Without everyone's hormones raging (both male and female), and reproduction, sex, everything related - being simply a small part of our world, we might actually get some damn progress done.

  105. Do Androids dream of electric sheep? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do Androids dream of electric sheep?
    Great. New images stuck in my head.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Do Androids dream of electric sheep? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Do people dream of real sheep?
      I don't.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Do Androids dream of electric sheep? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      Given the article topic, it's a sex joke. Keep up. :-)

      For the few people on /. who don't know, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" was the title of the short story on which Blade Runner was based.

      The tie-in is the joke: If you're going to shag a sheep, do it on the edge of a cliff so they push back harder. And/or any number of other sex/sheep jokes.

      It's been a long week.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  106. Bestiality by lectos · · Score: 1

    The same thing could be said about animals. I guess humping a piece of metal covered in latex that talks to you isn't as taboo as humping piece of wool that says "baaaa!." It's the same thing in my mind.

  107. If I married a robot... by Alexpkeaton1010 · · Score: 1

    would it be against the ToS for it to level my WoW alts while I am at work?

  108. Life emulates Star Trek. Again by OzPhIsH · · Score: 2, Informative

    Star Trek: TOS, Episode 74: Requiem for Methuselah Just watched it last night actually. Kirk falls hard for an android (but he doesn't know it she is one), and goes rather mad in my opinion. I thought he was about to sexually assault her at one point, really. Good thing M4 was around... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_for_Methuselah_(TOS_episode)

    --

    "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    1. Re:Life emulates Star Trek. Again by Sqweegee · · Score: 1

      There's also from TNG the episode "The Naked Now",a few drinks or a disease that makes people act drunk is all it seems to take for a little synthetic loving.

  109. Re:Futurama Said it best-SAY THE REST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (P.S. a couple of my favorite Internet authors, Elf Sternberg and DB_Story, have been writing about these types of relationships for years now.)

    Is there a type of relationship Elf hasn't written about?

  110. Often overlooked by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate to introduce a serious note, but there's people out there who could benefit from a little bot-love. People who are disabled, deformed and badly disfigured have traditionally had a lot of trouble finding partners.

    Masturbation and prostitutes are often their only access to sex. Love is something for other people. A mechanical counterfeit might be more acceptable than the alternative.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Often overlooked by couchslug · · Score: 1

      There are also people who just psychologically toxic and should never be inflicted on another person.
      Slam-bots might keep some of them from bothering other humans.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  111. robot or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it doesn't matter if it's a robot or not... the important thing is the design... it can be made to look like someone you've lost, or someone you desire... the possibilities are endless. put me down for a ex-girlfriend look-a-like that I can fully control in every aspect... buy two and get free shipping ! build your own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harem ! at last freedom from those manipulative harpies ! unfortunately, 50 years after this is released the human race will probably die

  112. Good? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    As creepy as that sounds, it could be good in that, if the race survives, it will be entirely through people who don't want or need sex toys. (Or, at least, people whose wants/needs aren't exclusively satisfied by sex toys.)

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  113. nag chip option by woolley+bully · · Score: 1

    Is the nag chip an option?

    1. Re:nag chip option by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Harcourt Fenton Mudd's robo-wife had the nag chip.

  114. the ten factors... by kisrael · · Score: 1

    does anyone have a reference to the 10 specific factors?
    At the risk of taking all the romance out of romance, it would be interesting to see them listed and described.

    --
    SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
  115. GPS by Jetrel · · Score: 1

    Well I know that I am pretty smitten on the female voice in my GPS. She really knows how to boss me around and is usually always right... Guess I am half way there!

    --
    If it isn't broke, tinker with it till it is!
  116. I remember have seen this before ... by mind_of_delusion · · Score: 1

    ... in an episode of Ghost in the Shell : Stand Alone Complex. A guy fall in love with a low tech robot and make virus to destroy all the other robots of the same serie he own, to make his one unique ... but I can't imagine for now how to simulate the complex interactions who made two peoples loving each other (I mean another way that just sexual reciproque interest) ... perhaps the well named "ghost" by Masamune Shirow ... (sorry for my english pals, don't hesitate to correct my sentence, it help me to learn)

  117. Impossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No girls on the Internet

  118. Robot Love by godcipherdivine · · Score: 1

    Nothing like the attraction of man to cold hard steel... even if it is lifelike. Oh well, so long as it'll listen to my problems, and clean the house every now and again, I'm good. So I guess I should learn binary. I don't want the kids having to grow up in a bilingual home.

  119. Heh, by onion_joe · · Score: 1

    You made a funny without realizing it: From your post, it's not unusual to be loved by anyone is a line by, who, Tom Jones?

    --
    sig sig sig siggy sig
  120. Chii? by cthellis · · Score: 1

    Chii...

    1. Re:Chii? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hideki!! ^_^

  121. Three laws by DeadDecoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, I think you came up with a replacement for the Three Laws. With those 10 rules, no man will ever be harmed again.

    1. Re:Three laws by ibbie · · Score: 1

      Wow, I think you came up with a replacement for the Three Laws. With those 10 rules, no man will ever be harmed again.

      Right up until a jealous woman figures out how to hack the thing and replace the "compliment male's equipment" subroutine with the "emergency! close all entrances." function call. (:
      --
      The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.
  122. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  123. All Technology Discussion End With Futurama by severoon · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there a Futurama about this? Yes, there was! The Lucy Liu bot...and the movie reel about little Billy!

    --
    but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
  124. already explored in the scif-fi realm by CaptainNerdCave · · Score: 0

    even in 1995 (and obviously, plenty of times before), this had already been addressed; however, the premise is intriguing, especially if the general public is finally becoming aware of it http://imdb.com/title/tt0667998/

  125. New buying options by holyspidoo · · Score: 1

    iMac, or iMac with benefits...

    1. Re:New buying options by Sedders · · Score: 1

      Sorry guys, I'm betting a *lot* of women would be more than willing to drop males and go for the automatons. They're just too polite to rub your noses in it. But don't be surprised and offended when it happens.

  126. Reminds Me by HouseArrest420 · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of a Futurama epsiode I once saw. The message there was sex+robots=human extinction lol.

    --
    This is Slashdot! Give me the latest gadget, bug, or OS project! This ain't english class so don't confuse the two!
  127. Put in the futurama tape. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    "Massive corn clog in port 7!"

  128. Fail. by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 1

    You can't be doing it right. :-p

  129. What do exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, just because you havent experienced it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

    Besides, everybody experiences love. Why do you buy that shiny new gadget? Love. Then when you have it, it disappears, transfers into new objects in your life that you dont have.

    Look at the pattern. It is quite obvious, and still, we refuse to SEE them for the longest time. It restricts and binds us into repetition of ignorance and stupidity, while we try to sound intelligent jusifying our irrational and emotional behaviours and escapisms!

    When you were a little kid, all the world was full of love all the time. When you see a little baby in the eyes, it opens you to experience and understand this.

    Its easy to close down and get cynical. But thats also pretty weak, because a strong heart will survive any calamity, while the weak ones lose faith at the slightest hurt.

    Look up ANY hero: They ALL had faith, and they all had this love, for justice, for equity, for a woman, whatever. Something WILLED them into action and made them stand up again and again and again. You can get inspired by seeing videos of Rambo! Its all there, even in the worst gore, someone is behind with a story about reality - the messages are everywhere when you just open up.

    Instead of just reading about heroes, why not go for the real experience?
    Why not go for reality, rather than this make-believe and all the _thoughts_ about how you _think_ things are?

  130. Mystery is not real by vga_init · · Score: 1

    Mystery? Gives me a break. If you don't know or understand your partner, it's time to find a new partner. You wouldn't sign a contract without reading it first, would you? Well, you probably would, but you know it's wrong.

    It's like saying, "We scientists have figured out what attracts people to good contractual agreements... mystery. Who knows what hidden terms are going to pop out and make your day." What it's all really about is satisfying mutual interest.

  131. But what about the 3 laws of robotics?? by besalope · · Score: 1
    1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
    2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
    3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    While the relationship might fulfill all three laws, but the breakup and post-relationship could break all three! The human could be emotionally injured, and the robot could be put at risk in regards to its own existence and having to obey the order that could emotionally harm the human...

    Meh, might as well enjoy the Never Questioning Sex Robot Overlords while they're still around.

    1. Re:But what about the 3 laws of robotics?? by Steve001 · · Score: 1

      besalope wrote as part of a post:

      1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
      2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
      3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

      While the relationship might fulfill all three laws, but the breakup and post-relationship could break all three! The human could be emotionally injured, and the robot could be put at risk in regards to its own existence and having to obey the order that could emotionally harm the human...

      It is likely that the robot would be programmed with a way to resolve the situation in case where it can't avoid violating the Three Laws through no fault of its own.

      In a related issue, per Asimov's stories if a robot is in a situation where the robot cannot save all humans (say ten individuals are in danger at the same time). In that case, it is programmed to save the most humans possible.

      Another way to deal with emotional pain is to program the robot to give that type of pain at a lower priority compared to physical pain.

  132. Feeling loved really comes from the other person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you feel "loved" by a computer, a robot, or anything inanimate, it is really time to go out and meet some girls, or a shrink..

    Love is much more than just thinking you are loved by someone. Of course, it involves some sort of telepathy, or until-now unexplained energy exchange, and as such, sheepthinking will not allow such thoughts and discussions here on /.

    Oh well, so much for free thinking.. but believe anything you will, but the truth will still hit you in the face one day and then it wont matter.

    Just remember, every proof requires experiential observation, which precedes any theory-testing of hypothesis. So experience will always be the main factor in scientific testing. The masters of observation being yogis, which anyone with dedication and willing to do experiential experiments can become and find out for themselves.

    And uh yes, thinking you are unloved or unlovable, or not recognizing love, will of course shut you out from it. In fact, we do, every day, towards everyone and everything..

  133. Sacrificing for the benefit of my WII by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 1

    If I take the time to clean it properly, and decorate it with attractive sparkly flower stickers? Is that sacrificing for the benefit of my WII?

    Does my WII have to be able to reproduce itself in order to be said to benefit? Could someone love a virus or bacteria? How about a puppy? There's some kind of squishy line we which tend to imagine is concrete and solid.

    P.S. I subscribe to 14 major religions and 3 minor ones. But I'm probably not going to renew 2 or 3 of the subscriptions in 2008 due to inflation in fuel and food prices. I have no private life, I have children and a wife. And my WII is imaginary.

  134. A sacrifice is needed for love? by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

    You WII is not conscious of you or your love. Its all in your mind.
    But calling it imaginary is just an insult to it! You should be ashamed. Now, look, its crying..
    And what about your wife and children, how will you ever be able to look them in the eyes again?

    Now if you can leave them for your WII, now, THAT must be love, for sure. At least from your part.. ;)

  135. 150 years from now the robots take over by michael_30736 · · Score: 1

    Because all of the remaining humans are over one hundred years old.

  136. What's good for the turkey.... by Cruciform · · Score: 1

    The New Scientist recently posted a list of craziest experiments, one of them being what was the minimum needed to turn on a male turkey.

    It turned out a mummified head on a stick did the trick.

    Though our courting rituals may be more complex (or at least appear to be to us), we're nothing more than another type of animal convinced of our own superiority. That doesn't mean we cant' fool our brains into wanting or enjoying something that doesn't contribute to the survivability of the race.

    We'll find our own mummified head-on-a-stick soon enough.

    1. Re:What's good for the turkey.... by julesh · · Score: 1

      We'll find our own mummified head-on-a-stick soon enough.

      I already have several gigabytes of mummified head-on-a-stick (metaphorically speaking) on my hard disk.

  137. perhaps they are just the 3 guidelines of robotics by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 1

    To misquote Capt. Barbossa, "They aren't laws so much a guidelines."

    --
    Think global, act loco
  138. Digusted by nchampion · · Score: 1

    I read /. to be well informed about things my husband is interested in. I have never been so compelled to contribute to a discussion before. Most of you seem to be misogynist jerks, who seem to think women are only good for sex, cooking, and cleaning, don't work, spread diseases and take your money when they leave you. I think it's great if people men and women want to have sex with robots as a means of finding fulfilment when they are single or lazy, just like any other type of masturbation. I'm sure my husband would love to have a f*ck bot, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't want me, or would put me down. I don't understand why anyone needs to put down women to say that they'd like to have a new fun sexual option. Everyone who thinks a robot lover would be better than a fulfilling dual human relationship probably needs to step away from the WOW and meet a real, self-realized woman. Perhaps you feel the need to put women down so you can feel better about not being able to find one who will not only have sex with you but love you as well. Please don't take your own insecurities and malign my entire gender. Shame on you.

    1. Re:Digusted by rrhal · · Score: 1

      So do you think these robots will boot Linux? Could you imagine a Beowulf Cluster of open source Sex robots ...

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
    2. Re:Digusted by wintermute42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this discussion is pretty much Slashdot at it's worst. I suppose that if you wanted to answer the question of why there are so few women in software engineering you could use this thread as exhibit A. The posts make me wonder what the average age is for slashdot readers. I would like to think that we can forgive some of these posters because they are just young and don't know any better.

  139. Two words! Summer Glau! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    You know with hottie Summer playing a Terminator in "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" that's there going to be some episodes down the road with John Connor gets hot for the Terminator or vice versa.

    Talk about a love doll!

    'Course it would be more fun if Sarah got hot for the Terminator!

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  140. Obligatory Despair.com Quote by spun · · Score: 1

    "The only consistent feature in all your dysfunctional relationships is you."

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  141. Two Questions. by das_magpie · · Score: 1

    What happens when a female wants a baby? I thought love and reproduction share some kind of connection hence the penis and the vagina.

    Will the robot love you back?

  142. Wasn't there a myth about this issue? by AnnafromA2 · · Score: 1

    Check out Tom Smith's wonderful song "Pygmalion 2.0" for a humorous and insightful look at humans, droids, sex and love. http://filkertom-itom.blogspot.com/2007/03/033-pygmalion-20.html People fall in love with their cars, boats, and computers all the time. Why would you expect them not to fall in love with a human-looking device which makes them feel fantastic?

  143. humans are destined to hate humanoid robots! by distantbody · · Score: 1

    The ship of evolution obviously favours the ones who procreate. So a species would only fail in a futurama-esque fashion if it doesn't chance upon the mutation of robot disgust/hate soon enough. Indeed it may already be present in humans. So I guess that humans are destined to hate humanoid robots.

  144. The real questions by freezingweasel · · Score: 1

    There's no real question that this sort of thing will be widespread as it becomes affordable.

    The questions are, what new problems will happen, and how will society change to reflect this obvious market.

    The existence of the blow up doll market proves the existence of the sex-bot market. The biggest thing holding back sexbots now is probably that they can't be easily concealed. Real Dolls, besides being expensive are human-sized. Blow up dolls are smaller but less realistic. Neither carries the risk of certain diseases or pregnancy like casual human sex does.

    If any woman thinks men don't want access to sex WITHOUT any deeper attachment, consider the bar scene.

    The question is, will this remain a stigma? Many men now have Playboys, but it isn't good to let a significant other see them. Sex robots will probably have a similar view. The problem is jealousy (caused by insecurity?) We need to sit down and figure out what causes women to be so much more jealous. Stereotypically speaking, the man wants sex, the woman a relationship, and feels (rightly) that if a man has free access to sex, she has one less tool to use to keep him interested in her. (As this is a big tool in keeping a man's interest.) Women are jealous of more than just sex, anything that consumes a man's attention (keeping it from them) is the enemy, so hobbies, video games, old friends etc MUST GO! (Causing resentment on the man's part and hurting the cause if she goes too far.) So if jealousy is the cause, we have 2 options, remove the desire for a relationship or give them one.

    I'm not sure how to get a woman un-interested in a relationship, any analysis of why they want one is far over my head, buried deep enough in psychology that I'd never understand. In today's day and age, relationships are pretty much not needed, unless you want to take time off work to have a kid, or don't want to work period. With everything payable by net or mail, and more constantly offered 24/7, If you don't need a relationship Still, are women right that men's lack of interest in relationships is abnormal, or are men right that women's obsessiveness about relationships is abnormal. Is a woman's insistence that she be "everything" for her man any less stupid than the man who thinks he's "God's gift to women"? Is the relationship urge driven by a sense of need, or a sense that their achievement as a woman is measured by their ability to attract (and possibly control) a man?

    The other option, give all the women relationships! Shall we give them all perfectly loyal robot men, so once they feel they're secure they open up and have free sex? Should we have mandatory randomly chosen marriages for all, no divorce available, but sex not restricted to the "marriage"? With the women having nothing to lose, why not? Perhaps enforced group marriages, 20-30 people would all be "married" together, and while you could change groups, someone else would replace you. Your commune would always be there, and there'd just about always be someone there to cry your eyes out to. If Janet doens't like hard rock, take Jenny. If neither of them like skiing, when you go bring Donna. Maybe mandatory communes WITHOUT swapping would be best. Your group would be selected at a certain age, maybe 18, at which point you'd all move in together. Sex outside the commune could be banned, giving each commune sex only within themselves, limiting the spread of STDs. Given sex was more often available, you wouldn't have to look outside to less trusted sources. Wihout free marriage and divorce with seizure of assets (everything shared withing the 20-30) and no monopolizing of people allowed, men wouldn't need to fear property stolen / vandalized and would be less fearful of relationships.

    Or should we men tell them "Grow up and realize the world isn't about feelings! Spread! Now! It's your biological duty!" Nah, if we tick'em off they'll really be frigid. Then again, if women like jerks, maybe this is a good pickup line.

    For anyone

  145. Or not. by agent_no.82 · · Score: 1

    I forsee a massive market fro artificial wombs if this takes place. The more "emotionally" advanced the robots become, the more likely the citizenry will just clone themselves with their robot lovers.

  146. Re:Anyone who can't form a relationship with a hum by agent_no.82 · · Score: 1

    Or alternatively, artificial womb technology will become strong enough to override this.

  147. Up Next: Random Advertiser Sex!! by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

    I doubt will see anything on the level of the movie A.I. in that short period, but I could certainly see effective, semi-autonamous sex bots becoming a reality. At best though, you'd just lead them around on a leash or something and would have a very basic personality profile with a primary focus on the sex part of the equation, rather than the full emotional baggage package of a real person.

    Most likely, the next big thing that will "cross the line" here, is some sort of very realistic AI setup with a fully computer generated avatar that will be entirely indistinguishable from having a video chat with any random man or woman out there. Even without ever physically meeting, humans already develop emotional attachments to little more than a picture on computer screen.

    It's not unlikely that this will become reality in Japan first, where dating simulators have been around for decades as entertainment. However, it'll likely be the porn industry who first starts exploiting people by literally hosting dozens of virtual cyber-prostitute farm servers that will reach to vocal and visual feedback through a user's webcam and respond accordingly (and realistically at that).

    Finally, expect this to sneak it's way into mainstream advertising and scram artists. Instead of spam, junk mail and telemarketing phone calls, a series advertiser-owned farms of virtual women and men will initiate video chats with random folks as a means of getting the advertiser's foot in the door. However, unlike a paid employee of a normal company who's time on the clock is too costly to waste on being nice after giving their pitch, the virtual versions won't have that limitation imposed upon them and will be free to do whatever it takes to seal a deal... including sex acts, just to do things like sell off an insurance policy.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  148. Oblig FZ Reference by Gizah · · Score: 1

    You have just destroyed one model XQJ-37 nuclear powered pansexual roto-plooker....and you're gonna have to pay for it.
  149. Ahem, ahem, ahem. Talk for yourself pal. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Men, broadly speaking, are sexually interested in women in a purely objective, physical sense. Talk for yourself.
    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  150. Chobits! by DiamondMX · · Score: 1

    I want my own Chii~ I suspect that the Japanese are just hiding this technology from us westerners, and think we should petition the UN to make them share. Chii~

    1. Re:Chobits! by Steve001 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the anime series "Chobits" does bring up a great many issues concerning the problems that will arise when realistic male and female androids become possible. Among the issues shown:

      • How will humans handle having to compete with someone who is "perfect?"
      • What are the ethical and emotional consequences of making a android copy of someone who has died?
  151. "Love"? by TheOrquithVagrant · · Score: 1

    A common and in my opinion quite good definition of love is "when someone else's happiness is essential to your own". How the hell could anyone ever think to feel _that_ for a programmed sex-bot?

  152. robot companions by danielpauldavis · · Score: 1

    Why not? Humans already "fall in love" with mere animals that stick around merely because that's where the food is. Robots only need to be oiled. Some people already "love their cars." A robot would do a better job of returning that "love."
    The real problem is that people don't know what "love" really is.

    --
    Cranky educator.
  153. Anime predicts the future by Kat-chan · · Score: 1

    The next generation of Chobits. Maybe in a hundred years time we could generate and customize our robots to look exactly like the people we desire? Like in SIMS for example.

  154. Paternity rates by F.J.Allison · · Score: 1

    The Straight Dope has it as the above poster has said: between about one and four per cent. The 10% stat seems to be an urban legend based on old, slapdash research.