People of Massachusetts to be Having Sex With Robots by 2012

[johnnymk]

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/robot-sex...012-310568.php

MSNBC is running a report on the impending likelihood of legalized marital relations with robots. They have word from a leading researcher at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, Dr. Levy, who seems to think peeps will be getting freaky with their robots by 2012, with marriage following by 2050. One thing is for sure; Gizmodo shall be supporting the revolution all the way! Dr. Levy said:


"Once you have a story like 'I had sex with a robot, and it was great!' appear someplace like Cosmo magazine, I'd expect many people to jump on the bandwagon."

We are thinking you could probably drop the phrase 'with a robot,' as well as the blurb after the exclamation mark, and still have us convinced. Dr. Levy goes onto suggest that Massachusetts will be the first state to contain a robot-human sexing population. He justifies his theory by stating:
"Massachusetts is more liberal than most other jurisdictions in the United States and has been at the forefront of same-sex marriage."

Though we aren't too sure the reasoning is sound, we have already seen Roomba owners gaining an emotional attachment to their machines. Whether they will be putting their winkles in the Roomba's dinkle and allowing it to have a tinkle, we very much doubt. However, if sexbots get this real (NSFW), well, perhaps the ethics of robosexuals is a serious debate, after all.

If that was a bit too technical for you, don't hit up the link for a more detailed overview of the human-robot emotional landscape and its likely evolution. [MSNBC image via What the Heck]

[uncledaddy]

But can she cook and clean?

[Thesifer]

But can she cook and clean?

Yes. And she won't complain about it. Just program her without the ability.

[LPMiller]

i for one welcome our new Sexy robot overlords.

[Nija]

What about the sanctity of marriage?

[DarkFury]

What about the sanctity of marriage?

Would that be the "warranty statement" that comes with the robot?

[zenbooty]

This has all already been predicted in that most excellent Sci Fi flick, Cherry 2000.

[Thesifer]

I mean I know people sleep with other people after they have slept with someone else, but I wonder if people would pick one of these up on the cheap, "Only slept with a few times."

[InfiniteNothing]

Used underwear in Japan fetches a premium. I don't see why this wouldn't.

[utcpal]

If this becomes real...
Will this reduce the sex crimes or increase it ?

[LPMiller]

I'm guessing that will depend on if the robots have DRM or not.

[uncledaddy]

If this becomes real...
Will this reduce the sex crimes or increase it ?

Good question. We'll have to have laws enacted to prevent "Robot Rape"

[TofuNinja]

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 to 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.


So all you guys who like violent freaky sex.... that's out

"Sexy Robot, spank me hard."

"I can't, it conflicts with rule 1"

"Choke me Robot"

"Unable, conflicts with rule 1"

[Napoleon54]

Extended version... apparently we'll be marrying them too. Doesn't make any sense to me 'cause marriage implies consent, and consent requires free will. In addition to wondering if that'll even be possible (so soon?)... the idea of sentient robots flat out scares me.

-----------

Forecast: Sex and Marriage with Robots by 2050

By Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience

posted: 12 October 2007 04:46 pm ET

Humans could marry robots within the century. And consummate those vows.

"My forecast is that around 2050, the state of Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots," artificial intelligence researcher David Levy at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands told LiveScience. Levy recently completed his Ph.D. work on the subject of human-robot relationships, covering many of the privileges and practices that generally come with marriage as well as outside of it.

At first, sex with robots might be considered geeky, "but once you have a story like 'I had sex with a robot, and it was great!' appear someplace like Cosmo magazine, I'd expect many people to jump on the bandwagon," Levy said.

Pygmalion to Roomba

The idea of romance between humanity and our artistic and/or mechanical creations dates back to ancient times, with the Greek myth of the sculptor Pygmalion falling in love with the ivory statue he made named Galatea, to which the goddess Venus eventually granted life.

This notion persists in modern times. Not only has science fiction explored this idea, but 40 years ago, scientists noticed that students at times became unusually attracted to ELIZA, a computer program designed to ask questions and mimic a psychotherapist.

"There's a trend of robots becoming more human-like in appearance and coming more in contact with humans," Levy said. "At first robots were used impersonally, in factories where they helped build automobiles, for instance. Then they were used in offices to deliver mail, or to show visitors around museums, or in homes as vacuum cleaners, such as with the Roomba. Now you have robot toys, like Sony's Aibo robot dog, or Tickle Me Elmos, or digital pets like Tamagotchis."

In his thesis, "Intimate Relationships with Artificial Partners," Levy conjectures that robots will become so human-like in appearance, function and personality that many people will fall in love with them, have sex with them and even marry them.

"It may sound a little weird, but it isn't," Levy said. "Love and sex with robots are inevitable."

Sex in 5 years

Levy argues that psychologists have identified roughly a dozen basic reasons why people fall in love, "and almost all of them could apply to human-robot relationships. For instance, one thing that prompts people to fall in love are similarities in personality and knowledge, and all of this is programmable. Another reason people are more likely to fall in love is if they know the other person likes them, and that's programmable too."

In 2006, Henrik Christensen, founder of the European Robotics Research Network, predicted that people will be having sex with robots within five years, and Levy thinks that's quite likely. There are companies that already sell realistic sex dolls, "and it's just a matter of adding some electronics to them to add some vibration," he said, or endowing the robots with a few audio responses. "That's fairly primitive in terms of robotics, but the technology is already there."

As software becomes more advanced and the relationship between humans and robots becomes more personal, marriage could result. "One hundred years ago, interracial marriage and same-sex marriages were illegal in the United States. Interracial marriage has been legal now for 50 years, and same-sex marriage is legal in some parts of the states," Levy said. "There has been this trend in marriage where each partner gets to make their own choice of who they want to be with."

"The question is not if this will happen, but when," Levy said. "I am convinced the answer is much earlier than you think."

When and where it'll happen

Levy predicts Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize human-robot marriage. "Massachusetts is more liberal than most other jurisdictions in the United States and has been at the forefront of same-sex marriage," Levy said. "There's also a lot of high-tech research there at places like MIT."

Although roboticist Ronald Arkin at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta does not think human-robot marriages will be legal anywhere by 2050, "anything's possible. And just because it's not legal doesn't mean people won't try it," he told LiveScience.

"Humans are very unusual creatures," Arkin said. "If you ask me if every human will want to marry a robot, my answer is probably not. But will there be a subset of people? There are people ready right now to marry sex toys."

The main benefit of human-robot marriage could be to make people who otherwise could not get married happier, "people who find it hard to form relationships, because they are extremely shy, or have psychological problems, or are just plain ugly or have unpleasant personalities," Levy said. "Of course, such people who completely give up the idea of forming relationships with other people are going to be few and far between, but they will be out there."

Ethical questions

The possibility of sex with robots could prove a mixed bag for humanity. For instance, robot sex could provide an outlet for criminal sexual urges. "If you have pedophiles and you let them use a robotic child, will that reduce the incidence of them abusing real children, or will it increase it?" Arkin asked. "I don't think anyone has the answers for that yet—that's where future research needs to be done."

Keeping a robot for sex could reduce human prostitution and the problems that come with it. However, "in a marriage or other relationship, one partner could be jealous or consider it infidelity if the other used a robot," Levy said. "But who knows, maybe some other relationships could welcome a robot. Instead of a woman saying, 'Darling, not tonight, I have a headache,' you could get 'Darling, I have a headache, why not use your robot?'"

Arkin noted that "if we allow robots to become a part of everyday life and bond with them, we'll have to ask questions about what's going to happen to our social fabric. How will they change humanity and civilization? I don't have any answers, but I think it's something we need to study. There's a real potential for intimacy here, where humans become psychologically and emotionally attached to these devices in ways we wouldn't to a vibrator."

Levy is currently writing a paper on the ethical treatment of robots. When it comes to sex and love with robots, "the ethical issues on how to treat them are something we'll have to consider very seriously, and they're very complicated issues," Levy said.

Levy successfully defended his thesis Oct. 11.

link

[BlueTriangle]

but gay marriage is "oh so terrible"

[Napoleon54]

but gay marriage is "oh so terrible"

As long as the robot isn't gay I don't have a problem with it.

[zenbooty]

Extended version... apparently we'll be marrying them too. Doesn't make any sense to me 'cause marriage implies consent, and consent requires free will.

Ain't you never heard of no shotgun weddin'?

In addition to wondering if that'll even be possible (so soon?)... the idea of sentient robots flat out scares me.

Don't worry. We can't really figure out how our own brains work, beyond broad generalities, and I doubt we will any time soon. We can't create what we ourselves don't fully understand.

[renovation]

i can see the Head Lines now .
John Doe electrocute having sex with his robot!
or
national recall on all sexbot robots due to possible deadly electral shorting !

[Napoleon54]

Ain't you never heard of no shotgun weddin'?

Don't worry. We can't really figure out how our own brains work, beyond broad generalities, and I doubt we will any time soon. We can't create what we ourselves don't fully understand.

Is consciousness necessarily organic? I don't think we'd necessarily have to be able to answer all the questions about our own awareness before creating something based on hardware and programming that had it as well. We didn't know that much about nuclear physics when we built the bombs that ended WWII, but we knew enough to be dangerous. It might even happen inadvertently (as postulated by countless scifi movies). If that is indeed possible, perhaps we'll be finding out soon. If that isn't possible, there's no way to prove a negative, and thus we'll have no option but to leave the question unanswered.

Because of our own limited understanding of how awareness develops and on what level it exists, where it resides, etc... our technology could very well be approaching a line that if crossed would lead to awareness. Perhaps computers have that potential and perhaps they don't, but what's sure is that we don't know.

Personally, I think the best answer to that question would come from a monk rather than an engineer.

[Napoleon54]

And further... I don't think you can marry a piece of property. You might as well marry a car or a house. Discussing robot marriages necessarily IMO implies sentient robots. If a robot has the capacity to consent to marriage, at what point does it cease being a piece of hardware/property and become an individual?

Or perhaps I'm taking this way too far and implying too much. Perhaps "marriage" is just a really bad/irresponsible word choice on the part of the authors.

Does anyone know if they're implying robots will have consciousness?

[zenbooty]

Is consciousness necessarily organic? I don't think we'd necessarily have to be able to answer all the questions about our own awareness before creating something based on hardware and programming that had it as well.

Well, generally there are two basic schools of thought. Some think consciousness is akin to the soul, something that exists within us external to our physiology. This is generally a religious viewpoint, the idea that our consciousness is the manifestation of free will bestowed upon us by a higher power, a "ghost in the machine," so to speak. If this were true, it would be impossible for us to recreate, as it is something intangible and unattainable by mortal effort.

The second, scientific school (which I place my personal bet on) Is that consciousness and free will are just products of our most advanced reasoning capabilties. It is the ability to take vast amounts of data through our senses, integrate it with even more vast amounts of data we have stored in our brains through the course of our experiences and learnings, plus any instinctual, "built in" data we may have been born with, and from this process conclusions that result in courses of action from which we choose. If this be the case, then theoretically we should be able to reproduce it, either mechanically, electronically, or through biotech. The problem though, is that while we understand the basic mechanisms of the brain, the complexity is too great for us to unlock the necessary details. We know the brain functions similar to a computer. Neurons are connected by synapses to each other in various patterns, and create a chemical reaction which generates small electrical pulses that travel from one neuron to other neurons via those synapses, with the receiving neurons either responding by sending signals themselves or not. Somehow, the patterns of firing result in the various signals that the brain eventually sends through our nervous system to control all our physical activity and functions. But there are literally trillions of neurons and synapses! The vast amount of terrain that needs to be observed, and the sheer complexity and variance of firing patterns that are observed makes unlocking the puzzle an extremely daunting task. Its like trying to figure out how a computer works just by observing the binary state of every electronic circuit in memory and bit in storage, with only the vaguest notion of what various groups of circuits represent, only now make the problem many orders of magnitude more difficult, since your talking trillions of components, and we don't even know exactly how state is even represented by the neuron firings.

We didn't know that much about nuclear physics when we built the bombs that ended WWII, but we knew enough to be dangerous. It might even happen inadvertently (as postulated by countless scifi movies). If that is indeed possible, perhaps we'll be finding out soon. If that isn't possible, there's no way to prove a negative, and thus we'll have no option but to leave the question unanswered.

Different kinds of problem. The nuclear problem is a top down problem. We could produce effects before we understood the nitty gritty details of the physics of the phenomena. Getting to the details was just a matter of enough testing and observation of reactions we already knew how to reproduce. Understanding brain functions is a bottom up problem. We know the nitty gritty details of what is going on in the micro (nerons firing via synapses). But in trying to produce resultant behavior in the macro (consciousness or even just physical activity) we are required to unravel a veritable gordion knot of a puzzle whose complexity seems nearly infinite.

[Napoleon54]

Well, generally there are two basic schools of thought. Some think consciousness is akin to the soul, something that exists within us external to our physiology. This is generally a religious viewpoint, the idea that our consciousness is the manifestation of free will bestowed upon us by a higher power, a "ghost in the machine," so to speak. If this were true, it would be impossible for us to recreate, as it is something intangible and unattainable by mortal effort.

The second, scientific school (which I place my personal bet on) Is that consciousness and free will are just products of our most advanced reasoning capabilties. It is the ability to take vast amounts of data through our senses, integrate it with even more vast amounts of data we have stored in our brains through the course of our experiences and learnings, plus any instinctual, "built in" data we may have been born with, and from this process conclusions that result in courses of action from which we choose. If this be the case, then theoretically we should be able to reproduce it, either mechanically, electronically, or through biotech. The problem though, is that while we understand the basic mechanisms of the brain, the complexity is too great for us to unlock the necessary details. We know the brain functions similar to a computer. Neurons are connected by synapses to each other in various patterns, and create a chemical reaction which generates small electrical pulses that travel from one neuron to other neurons via those synapses, with the receiving neurons either responding by sending signals themselves or not. Somehow, the patterns of firing result in the various signals that the brain eventually sends through our nervous system to control all our physical activity and functions. But there are literally trillions of neurons and synapses! The vast amount of terrain that needs to be observed, and the sheer complexity and variance of firing patterns that are observed makes unlocking the puzzle an extremely daunting task. Its like trying to figure out how a computer works just by observing the binary state of every electronic circuit in memory and bit in storage, with only the vaguest notion of what various groups of circuits represent, only now make the problem many orders of magnitude more difficult, since your talking trillions of components, and we don't even know exactly how state is even represented by the neuron firings.

There's no reason to assume that any artificial consciousness would have to be based on the same mechanisms as the human brain. That's akin to assuming alien lifeforms are be humanoid or require water or are carbon-based. Projecting our particular conditions onto the unknown is a bit of an irresponsible leap IMO. I think we should be as openminded as possible about what context is required for consciousness to exist.

Different kinds of problem. The nuclear problem is a top down problem. We could produce effects before we understood the nitty gritty details of the physics of the phenomena. Getting to the details was just a matter of enough testing and observation of reactions we already knew how to reproduce. Understanding brain functions is a bottom up problem. We know the nitty gritty details of what is going on in the micro (nerons firing via synapses). But in trying to produce resultant behavior in the macro (consciousness or even just physical activity) we are required to unravel a veritable gordion knot of a puzzle whose complexity seems nearly infinite.

Not necessarily. If we continue to build increasing complex and capable systems, hardware and software, the whole process could unintentionally spawn an artificial conciousness. That trend began as soon as people began using programs to write other programs instead of coding strictly in binary. Programs already have somewhat autonomous ability to construct themselves as they see fit. Sure, programs have to follow the rules they are given, but those rules sets are becoming less defined as systems become increasingly capable of complex analyses and less dependant on human input at every step. If consciousness indeed doesn't have a spiritual basis and is instead simply a result of a complex system of accumulating and processing information... well, that's the direction our technology is going in whether creating consciousness is the intent or not. I suspect the first artificial consciousnesses will actually arise inadvertently. Perhaps they already do exist on a very basic level. It's an interesting situation... how do you define consciousness and how would you measure/ detect whether it exists? It's easy enough to assume that most of us are conscious because we have a sense of self and individual personalities, etc. But how about less complicated individualities, such as the various animal species, or even humans with mental handicaps? I personally doubt that people with severe mental handicaps are any more conscious than, say, a dog. If a computer were to currently have the level of self awareness that a dog posesses, how would we know that?

[zenbooty]

There's no reason to assume that any artificial consciousness would have to be based on the same mechanisms as the human brain. That's akin to assuming alien lifeforms are be humanoid or require water or are carbon-based. Projecting our particular conditions onto the unknown is a bit of an irresponsible leap IMO. I think we should be as openminded as possible about what context is required for consciousness to exist.

Please think of a better term than "irresponsible." I don't think I've said or done anything "irresponsible" here.

Anyway, please explain how you'd imagine we'd be able to understand consciousness outside the realm of researching the mechanisms of our own brains? Since we have no example of a consciousness not connected to a living bioliogical organism, how would we study or attempt to even define such a thing, never mind create it? I really doubt we are just going to stumble on it while designing a new expert system.

A consciousness may indeed be able to be created that doesn't resemble the structure and mechanisms of the brain. But no way will we ever do that until we figure out what consciousness is. And right now there is only one model to study scientifically to try and determine that, and that's the brain. So even if you have a point, it doesn't make mine any less valid.

Not necessarily. If we continue to build increasing complex and capable systems, hardware and software, the whole process could unintentionally spawn an artificial conciousness. That trend began as soon as people began using programs to write other programs instead of coding strictly in binary. Programs already have somewhat autonomous ability to construct themselves as they see fit. Sure, programs have to follow the rules they are given, but those rules sets are becoming less defined as systems become increasingly capable of complex analyses and less dependant on human input at every step. If consciousness indeed doesn't have a spiritual basis and is instead simply a result of a complex system of accumulating and processing information... well, that's the direction our technology is going in whether creating consciousness is the intent or not. I suspect the first artificial consciousnesses will actually arise inadvertently. Perhaps they already do exist on a very basic level. It's an interesting situation... how do you define consciousness and how would you measure/ detect whether it exists? It's easy enough to assume that most of us are conscious because we have a sense of self and individual personalities, etc. But how about less complicated individualities, such as the various animal species, or even humans with mental handicaps? I personally doubt that people with severe mental handicaps are any more conscious than, say, a dog. If a computer were to currently have the level of self awareness that a dog posesses, how would we know that?

When a computer can exhibit both logical traits and irrational traits at various times, I'll say its no longer just a deterministic machine, but a conscious self-aware being. Beyond that, I'll leave it to the scientists.

[Napoleon54]

Please think of a better term than "irresponsible." I don't think I've said or done anything "irresponsible" here.

Perhaps "necessary" [leap] would be an appropriate word, and in a way I'd have to agree with you. The crux of the matter is that we're discussing things we know very little about. We have no context for consciousness outside of the human experience, so as you've said, how can we think of it any other way? I do agree that the only methods we have for examining consciousness are dependant on using the human brain as a model, but I just feel it necessary topoint out that we shouldn't go so far down that path as to forget that consciousness could exist in other systems. I apologize for making the assumption that you weren't openminded to that possibility. And I agree, studying the human brain really is the only option we have... at least from a science and enginerring standpoint. As you pointed out a few posts back, the other option is that consciousness is more appropriately a philosophical or religious topic than a physical one. In which case, our model for study would be the human experience rather than the human brain.

[DarkFury]

heh... this thread reminds me of the current Adult swim commercial for "Robot Chicken".


The scientist is standing there with a female robot talking to a crowd of folks about the "benefits" of having one and some guy in the audience shouts....

"But can we <BLEEP> it"...

"Umm... excuse me?"

"But can we <BLEEP> it"...

(Of course you know what he says when they <BLEEP> it out. )