Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Although if someone were to make it a proper game, you could do some pretty interesting things with it that you wouldn't normally see in the context of videogaming.

Imagine playing the role of this self-aware gynoid, and instead of having to fight enemies or beat levels, your simple task is to simply 'fit in,' to not lead on to the fact that you're an error, dealing with the nuances of being 'human,' while not being able to actually show it.

It's a shame this video stopped short of doing something very cool. People keep talking about videogames being art or not being art, something like that would really push boundaries, and really show off the medium as more than just a vehicle for action.

And you could have a second story line, you play as Kara, trying to fit in and hide in human society while learning and experiencing as much as possible, a stealth/spy game writ large, but then other levels put you in the boots of the technician who let Kara live, who is now trying to locate her in his off time.

Back on the concept of sentient androids in general, I find the concept of "robotic sexual aids" interesting. Most people just think "Sex toy of the future" but as we get more advanced, where an advanced synthoid like Kara becomes possible, as we move closer to either creating true AI, or having it happen on it's own (The Singularity), then will come the question is such a thing moral? Is programming something to do task X whether it be a robot hooker or a robot dockworker when such a thing will eventually be capable of thought okay? Or the worst form of slavery?

Feel free to ignore the second paragraph, it made a lot more sense in my head.

You have to wonder if they really are any more capable of sentient thought than we are. Emotions are just programmed responses to input. It's like when you press a key on the keyboard but on a more sophisticated level. For instance, say a robot feels frustrated over not being able to open a can of worms. It's not frustration as we know it, but it's internals processing the input "Cannot open" and giving the output "Execute response FrustratedA". We could simply program them not to have the capabilities of feeling sorrow over their given tasks. In the video, the fact that the gynoid was expressing fear was a programming quirk that processed the input "Going to be" disassembled and came with the ouput "Start "Begging" Subroutine AA22-3".

However, we as humans are basically the same way. Our neurons take the input "Smelling Cooked Bacon" and gives the output "Wants it". If we get off our high horses, it becomes apparent that us and AI aren't too different. It's just that one is more sophisticated in it's ability to take in input and give out a range of responses than the other.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well if something is self aware, why is it less valuable then a naturally created self aware mind?

...because it's an artificial machine and not a living being?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well if something is self aware, why is it less valuable then a naturally created self aware mind?

...because it's an artificial machine and not a living being?

So? It thinks, it feels, functionality wise it's no different then us. We're simply meat based instead of electronic.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well if something is self aware, why is it less valuable then a naturally created self aware mind?

...because it's an artificial machine and not a living being?

So? It thinks, it feels, functionality wise it's no different then us. We're simply meat based instead of electronic.

It was artifically *made* by us. It's a robot. A robot is nothing but a mere tool.

This being said, what is the point of robots having emotions or self-awareness anyway? Seems pretty damn stupid to me. Sure, I could think of a few uses, but overall, it's a terrible idea. I don't care whether it's self-aware or not. It has to do what I want it to do. If it doesn't, I'll scrap it and get a new one. Simple as that.

I found something emotional in it. there is something about it that touchs me......

Yes i am interested, is there a movie or game linked to this?

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Although if someone were to make it a proper game, you could do some pretty interesting things with it that you wouldn't normally see in the context of videogaming.

Imagine playing the role of this self-aware gynoid, and instead of having to fight enemies or beat levels, your simple task is to simply 'fit in,' to not lead on to the fact that you're an error, dealing with the nuances of being 'human,' while not being able to actually show it.

It's a shame this video stopped short of doing something very cool. People keep talking about videogames being art or not being art, something like that would really push boundaries, and really show off the medium as more than just a vehicle for action.

And you could have a second story line, you play as Kara, trying to fit in and hide in human society while learning and experiencing as much as possible, a stealth/spy game writ large, but then other levels put you in the boots of the technician who let Kara live, who is now trying to locate her in his off time.

Back on the concept of sentient androids in general, I find the concept of "robotic sexual aids" interesting. Most people just think "Sex toy of the future" but as we get more advanced, where an advanced synthoid like Kara becomes possible, as we move closer to either creating true AI, or having it happen on it's own (The Singularity), then will come the question is such a thing moral? Is programming something to do task X whether it be a robot hooker or a robot dockworker when such a thing will eventually be capable of thought okay? Or the worst form of slavery?

Feel free to ignore the second paragraph, it made a lot more sense in my head.

You could read the book, "Sex and Marriage with Robots." It focuses on the topic in a way that I don't think anyone else has yet, at least as far as I'm aware of.

TheCustomLime wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Although if someone were to make it a proper game, you could do some pretty interesting things with it that you wouldn't normally see in the context of videogaming.

Imagine playing the role of this self-aware gynoid, and instead of having to fight enemies or beat levels, your simple task is to simply 'fit in,' to not lead on to the fact that you're an error, dealing with the nuances of being 'human,' while not being able to actually show it.

It's a shame this video stopped short of doing something very cool. People keep talking about videogames being art or not being art, something like that would really push boundaries, and really show off the medium as more than just a vehicle for action.

And you could have a second story line, you play as Kara, trying to fit in and hide in human society while learning and experiencing as much as possible, a stealth/spy game writ large, but then other levels put you in the boots of the technician who let Kara live, who is now trying to locate her in his off time.

Back on the concept of sentient androids in general, I find the concept of "robotic sexual aids" interesting. Most people just think "Sex toy of the future" but as we get more advanced, where an advanced synthoid like Kara becomes possible, as we move closer to either creating true AI, or having it happen on it's own (The Singularity), then will come the question is such a thing moral? Is programming something to do task X whether it be a robot hooker or a robot dockworker when such a thing will eventually be capable of thought okay? Or the worst form of slavery?

Feel free to ignore the second paragraph, it made a lot more sense in my head.

You have to wonder if they really are any more capable of sentient thought than we are. Emotions are just programmed responses to input. It's like when you press a key on the keyboard but on a more sophisticated level. For instance, say a robot feels frustrated over not being able to open a can of worms. It's not frustration as we know it, but it's internals processing the input "Cannot open" and giving the output "Execute response FrustratedA". We could simply program them not to have the capabilities of feeling sorrow over their given tasks. In the video, the fact that the gynoid was expressing fear was a programming quirk that processed the input "Going to be" disassembled and came with the ouput "Start "Begging" Subroutine AA22-3".

However, we as humans are basically the same way. Our neurons take the input "Smelling Cooked Bacon" and gives the output "Wants it". If we get off our high horses, it becomes apparent that us and AI aren't too different. It's just that one is more sophisticated in it's ability to take in input and give out a range of responses than the other.

Pretty much this. Humans will eventually advance to the point where they will be able to predict and control the human brain, and thus, depending on your view of such things, the human mind. I don't really see any philosophical difference between a true AI and a human being, seeing as they are both moral agents, and thus capable of inheriting responsibility.

The only difference I can come up with is that God's gift of a soul and free will is ambiguous when it comes to AI, but that is a whole other discussion.

Sigvatr wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well if something is self aware, why is it less valuable then a naturally created self aware mind?

...because it's an artificial machine and not a living being?

So? It thinks, it feels, functionality wise it's no different then us. We're simply meat based instead of electronic.

It was artifically *made* by us. It's a robot. A robot is nothing but a mere tool.

This being said, what is the point of robots having emotions or self-awareness anyway? Seems pretty damn stupid to me. Sure, I could think of a few uses, but overall, it's a terrible idea. I don't care whether it's self-aware or not. It has to do what I want it to do. If it doesn't, I'll scrap it and get a new one. Simple as that.

So what about genetically programmed babies? Once humans can synthetically create a biologically functional egg and sperm by your standards the resultant being is nothing but a robot, nothing more than a tool, even though it would be genetically and chemically indistinguishable from the rest of the human population.

The point is not that someone or something is self-aware, the point is whether it is aware that other beings are self-aware and have a reciprocal awareness of others and their different perspectives on the universe.

Without that, you have a clever psychopath which may exhibit all kinds of emotions to fool you into treating it like a person though it actually regards you as a machine.

Is this supposed to mean something to me?
This seems a lot like Sunny from I, Robot except with bad textures and less character. Oh no, she's afraid of death, shock horror. What else is there to her?

So is a psychopath not a person then?

In some respect no.

That is why when prosecuted they get put into mental hospitals rather than a normal prison.

Of course it depends on how you define a person. One definition is the capacity of recognising people as beings with their own inner mental life, and that is the one I am using to look at the question of humanoid robots.

From what I understand of the condition, psychopaths do not have that capacity.

High functioning psychopaths go to regular prison. Actually psychopaths in general go to regular prison unless they have something else wrong with them. In addition to that does that mean that a psychopath who doesn't get prosecuted and lives their life within the confines of the law is not a person as well?

And just to clarify are you arguing against their being legal persons, moral persons, or both? (For both robots and psychopaths.)

I think the interesting thing about the clip was that she didn't get destroyed by the uncaring, paranoid human. That is the main difference to how this trope normally plays out.

Maybe the machines wouldn't set out to destroy humans to save themselves for once in this scenario.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Back on the concept of sentient androids in general, I find the concept of "robotic sexual aids" interesting. Most people just think "Sex toy of the future" but as we get more advanced, where an advanced synthoid like Kara becomes possible, as we move closer to either creating true AI, or having it happen on it's own (The Singularity), then will come the question is such a thing moral? Is programming something to do task X whether it be a robot hooker or a robot dockworker when such a thing will eventually be capable of thought okay? Or the worst form of slavery?

Feel free to ignore the second paragraph, it made a lot more sense in my head.

But is there freewill and actual consent if the robot is pre-programmed to be a sexual partner? Humans have instinctual drives to have intercourse but that can be affected and influenced by other factors- conduct of others, social mores, environment etc. that might reduce the desire of cause them to refuse to consent.

What I also got out of the video was the sexist way (if you equate a machine designed to look female with an actual woman) the male spoke to Kara, it was pretty patronizing and very-1950's-don't -worry-your-pretty-head-because-you're-a-woman. It seems that a lot of writers try and use machines to critique human behaviour in a setting that even when humans are no longer concerned with skin colour, gender, sexual preferences etc. they can still find "an other" to exclude.


**Warning - contents may appear deeper than they are because no coffee has yet been consumed**

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Back on the concept of sentient androids in general, I find the concept of "robotic sexual aids" interesting. Most people just think "Sex toy of the future" but as we get more advanced, where an advanced synthoid like Kara becomes possible, as we move closer to either creating true AI, or having it happen on it's own (The Singularity), then will come the question is such a thing moral? Is programming something to do task X whether it be a robot hooker or a robot dockworker when such a thing will eventually be capable of thought okay? Or the worst form of slavery?

Feel free to ignore the second paragraph, it made a lot more sense in my head.

But is there freewill and actual consent if the robot is pre-programmed to be a sexual partner? Humans have instinctual drives to have intercourse but that can be affected and influenced by other factors- conduct of others, social mores, environment etc. that might reduce the desire of cause them to refuse to consent.

What I also got out of the video was the sexist way (if you equate a machine designed to look female with an actual woman) the male spoke to Kara, it was pretty patronizing and very-1950's-don't -worry-your-pretty-head-because-you're-a-woman. It seems that a lot of writers try and use machines to critique human behaviour in a setting that even when humans are no longer concerned with skin colour, gender, sexual preferences etc. they can still find "an other" to exclude.

On the first point that's kind of my point. Robot X has the capacity to be fully intelligent and aware, but has been limited in design and implementation to want to perform Task Y, whether Y is loading cargo, building cars or turning tricks really doesn't matter at this point X just wants to perform Y.

As to the sexism, that's one of the grand patterns of scifi, you stick humanity in a fantastic setting, then turn around and make social commentary on the present day within the setting to avoid offending any body or in in the earlier days of scifi, getting lynched. Brave New World, "I, Robot", Fahrenheit 451 and more modernly District 9, all have something to say or have a point to make about humans.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
On the first point that's kind of my point. Robot X has the capacity to be fully intelligent and aware, but has been limited in design and implementation to want to perform Task Y, whether Y is loading cargo, building cars or turning tricks really doesn't matter at this point X just wants to perform Y.

Then is the machine actually sentient, or is it merely executing its commands effectively like a macro chaining together different actions in Access?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
As to the sexism, that's one of the grand patterns of scifi, you stick humanity in a fantastic setting, then turn around and make social commentary on the present day within the setting to avoid offending any body or in in the earlier days of scifi, getting lynched. Brave New World, "I, Robot", Fahrenheit 451 and more modernly District 9, all have something to say or have a point to make about humans.

Which is part of what I was getting at in my first comment when I was saying that the Sony animation doesn't do or add anything new to something that has been covered before, and in a much more in depth manner.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well if something is self aware, why is it less valuable then a naturally created self aware mind?

...because it's an artificial machine and not a living being?

So? It thinks, it feels, functionality wise it's no different then us. We're simply meat based instead of electronic.

But the issue is that it is impossable to tell the difference between true independent thinking and extremely complex programming. So there would never be a way to prove that a robot had actually achieved sentience, or if it was simply using an adaptive learning program to imitate sentience.

And ultimately, its a question that we are simply not qualified to answer. And making a true AI that is sentient is a bad idea all around, simply because by saying we can say a formerly non-sentient object is now sentient we could also say that a formerly sentient object is now non-sentient. It could lead to genocide based on intelligence, if you don't meet a certain IQ level you arn't human and may/must be disposed of.

Not to mention the risk of Robot rebellion

I liked it. It was pretty cool and emotional. It didn't creep me out nearly as much as other AI's and stuff. It seemed real. However, It would make more sense as a "frankenstein" story than a robot, because we all know those are just programmed responses accidentally put in there. I say don't bother with AI in the first place. If humans start messing with it... you better be ready to grab your lasgun and start a war on all fronts.

That was pretty awesome. I wish it was a real game.

Some of the video kind o reminded me of one of my favorite music videos, The World Is Not Enough.

Also, I remember thinking about halfway through it that that short-haired lady from The Following would be awesome if they made a movie of this, and then the credits came and I realized she was the model and I felt a little dumb.

 Ratbarf wrote:
High functioning psychopaths go to regular prison. Actually psychopaths in general go to regular prison unless they have something else wrong with them. In addition to that does that mean that a psychopath who doesn't get prosecuted and lives their life within the confines of the law is not a person as well?

And just to clarify are you arguing against their being legal persons, moral persons, or both? (For both robots and psychopaths.)

In so far as I believe a person is an being that mentally recognises and understands the existence of other persons, I don't believe that extreme psychopaths are persons (in a moral sense) but I do believe that a robot could be a person.

The legal status is different. I don't think there is a legal definition of person. We generally use human being. A psychopath is clearly a human being, and a robot clearly isn't.