io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 1:15 PM
Mon Dec 14
17 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/23/08
Do we really want sentient robots?
If some of you answer yes, then I aks you another question:
Why then robots, when you can rise (sentient) children?
I really think robots should not be sentient, or in any case if they should, only with a human brain (transplanted?), to make a difference.
An now another point:
Are we programmed? doesn't mose men get excited wen they see a naked good looking woman o viceversa? or when you had a one night stand that you cant remember cos all the alcohol, tabac, etc etc. Was it really you or your programming?
Any answers ? :-)
12/26/08
12/26/08
12/22/08
Consent pertains to something one is capable of choosing to do. It does not apply to that which is impossible in reality. For instance, no one can "consent" to defy the law of gravity. The concept simply doesn't apply. Why? Because the act cannot be performed. If something cannot be done, it is impossible for anyone to allow it to be done. "Will" does not supersede reality. Reality is the primary, not one's desires.
Will presupposes reality. Will does not and cannnot exist without reality. As such, to apply the concept 'consent' to that which is outside reality is (again) the commission of the logical fallacy of the 'stolen concept'.
12/28/08
12/22/08
If a robot is capable of understanding the act of sex, and capable of desiring something or not desiring something, then its consent in intelligible non-coerced form is necessary.
Children can't consent to sex because they don't understand the consequences, and because the power imbalance is so great between a child and an adult. I have the feeling that robots, in some forms, would be much the same- the power imbalance would be so great as to make it rape regardless of their "informed" consent.
Of course brainwashing or programming a robot to want sex is the equivalent of dosing someone with a drug...take away the ability to knowingly consent, and the ability to say no, and you've got rape. That's the power imbalance right there.
Animals can't consent to sex because we can't translate their consent or lack of it- despite some gross people claiming the contrary- and I think some robots will fall into this category as well.
Of course a vibrator has no need of consent, since it has no desire to do anything. It's when robots hit the level of sentience that allows them desire, or the lack of it- along with the ability to refuse things- at that point, if it CAPABLE of refusal, but has been programmed not to, that's where it starts getting all rape-y.
I've been thinking lately about having sex with my own clone, or with my own future/past self. How weird would that be? Closer than kin, it would probably be really strange but given the opportunity I think I'd most likely have to do it...most people might not but I've always wanted to try everything, so for those who would...*cue lorraine mcfly* "IT was like kissing my...brother."
whew, that was a lot of words
12/22/08
"Why is it in Science Fiction that almost every time there is a baby, it grows unnaturally fast and then turns into a sexy adult that someone will have sex with?"
To be fair, you did ask for weird.
The most straight-forward case of this (that I can think of) is Isabelle Tyler from the 4400. We wait a long while for her to be born, then she kind of "sucks" up her mother's age and then turns into a sexy young woman. She very shortly thereafter gets married.
This phenomenon has variations. In "Children of Dune" Ghanima Atreides gets married when she's nine years old and presumably shacks up with her husband, but it's "okay" since she has the genetic memory of everyone who has ever lived and is therefore mentally an adult.
In the "Old Man's War" universe, Jane Sagan is chronologically a child, but since she's a special forces clone she has an adult body and mind, and then she shacks up with a chronological and mental adult.
Spock in "The Search for Spock" was less than a chronological year old when he started getting some hot Pon'Far action from Sareck as Genesis began to die.
Rapid aging is a common meme in science fiction, and I take the sexuality part of it as a commentary on what makes someone a rational agent, but I'd be interested to see your thoughts on it.
12/22/08
Which I'm kind of surprised I still remember. Huh.
12/22/08
Rapid aging and never-aging are both pretty common themes.
12/22/08
So the question is moot--a sexbot can't be harmed in the legal sense (although it can be physically damaged), because it's not a living entity, so the idea of consent doesn't apply to it.
To put it differently: can a vibrator consent to have sex with you? No, and it doesn't matter.
12/22/08
This also presumes that, in cases of sapient robots, the legal definition of harm wouldn't have to be expanded to include them.
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
Seems pretty straightforward, to me.
-Kle.
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
there is no difference in humans between what their genetic programming makes them do and what they actually want to do. there are conclusions drawn from conflicting sets of genetic programming that humans must evaluate using 'choice' which is yet another set of genetic programming. unltimately it all boils down to genetics, even our ability to be influcened by others and our environments, the nuture side of the argument, only exists because it's pre-programmed into our genes.
12/22/08
The fact that we can be influenced by our environment doesn't change the fact that we are influenced by our environment, and therefore two people with the same genetics could still have substantively different wants.
12/22/08
12/22/08
I think that this is the point where you have to acknowledge the possibility of sentience to a robot--when its behaviors cannot, in large part, be specifically predicted by its programming.
12/22/08
@Illuminatus: i feel you're not completely understanding my point. genetics alone determine very little explicitly but implicitly they determine everything because they create the mechanisms that allow other factors to operate within the equation. the sum total of which is a variety of phenotype expressions based on genetics, environmental imputs, and random chance.
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
12/22/08
Until we get to a point in technology where a robot brain can copy a biological human brain entirely, it's no use asking a programmed lump of metal for consent. But that's VERY far off in the future. Very.
But hey, that shouldn't stop you from discussing it! :D
12/22/08
12/22/08
So, even if the brain is capable of something more than coded operational parameters, and even if this counts as sentience, there's a serious question as to precisely how much of the brain has to be copied before it qualifies.
12/22/08
12/22/08
Though, that's because it isn't a very good movie.
12/22/08
12/22/08
Machines that develop true emergent/sentient intelligence won't be thinking with 'programs' per se, or at least not any more than biological organisms can be said to be, which is 'programmed' more in a metaphoric sense.
I think the answer is pretty cut and dry. If you have sex with a conscious being (whether it's made of meat or silicon or whatever) against its will, you are raping it. If you have sex with a non-conscious object, it doesn't have a will, and can't be raped any more than a fleshlight or whatever.
This isn't even a case of there being a gray area or a continuum, since one type of intelligence isn't really likely to develop into the other. The type of programming that goes into appliances or simulations like those described above is completely different from that which would result in sentience, or even in artificial life.
12/22/08
12/22/08
There's absolutely no guarantee that an artificial intelligence will ever even be possible, regardless of what the popular assumption is. The human being is still fundamentally inexplicable.
They're STILL finding out terribly basic things about genetics, even today. A couple of weeks ago a research team found that genetic replication could somehow direct itself in certain ways which allowed for additional advantage in the end being. But the device that does this is an absolute mystery.
12/22/08
12/23/08
Sorry man. I'm not ignoring "facts", as you call them. But apparently you're ignoring logic.
12/23/08
12/22/08
1.) Rape trials don't exist because 'there are gray areas'. Rape trials exist because every person accused of a crime has a right to her day in court. To assert that all rape trials occur because there's some 'gray area' of consent involved is to ignore the fundamental procedural guarantee that a trial provides.
2.) 'Unless you aren't bothered by having sex with a slave or a brainwashed victim, having relationships with robots will probably be just as complicated as having them with humans.'
Actually, I am bothered by those things, which would seem to make having relationships with robots much easier: don't do it. Until there's some sort of leap forward that produces sentient, self-aware, self-replicating robots/automatons/what-have-you, having sex with a robot is effectively having sex with a much lower life form. (Forget the usual sheep jokes, I'm talking echinoderms here.)
12/22/08
12/22/08
All of which leads me to mention this:
[kotaku.com]
12/22/08
In other words, until your mentioned break-throughs occur, indeed, robot sex is pretty much the same as doinking a Fleshlight, only it would be a Fleshlight gussied up with a voicebox and whirring sounds.
12/22/08
12/22/08
Phenotype expression alone disproves that. Furthermore, your argument about people being chemical-reaction machines is undermined by complexity theory.
12/22/08
12/22/08
If that is the case, then the same is possible for computers. We code them to be able to learn, thus allowing emergent personhood, learning, and, therefore, consent. Right?
12/22/08
12/22/08
Venture Bros. style.
12/22/08
Under this legal ideal, the consent for the use of name and likeness needs to be considered in any case where a person's identity is tied to a product. Case in point where the right of publicity was brought to bear was the vaccume commercials that featured Fred Astaire a few years ago, where the product was gumped into one of his dances. Astaire's heirs prompted legislation in Sacramento intended to protect their interests in his image, and soon a whole new set of considerations to fill a law school seminar was launched.
Let's take this to the next level: Even before you run into the whole machine-love issue, you'd have the separate front of the person being simulated needing to be compensated for use of their likeness, whether requested by that person or said person's heirs and estate. Which means you cannot make your robot look like Marilyn Monroe (ESPECIALLY her considering how protective her estate is of her image!) or anyone else without obtianing permission first.
And if you can actively sell permission for use of your image for such purpose, there's going to be the whole running afoul of "illicit commerce" laws in different jurisdictions that someone out there is likely to bring up. Even if you're not actively sleeping with someone for money but your robot double is, then we're likely to see some creative application of the codes covering prostitution being brought against you.
Moral of the story: Before you sleep with your robot, make sure the consent forms are on file and you get together in a socially liberal jurisdiction...
12/22/08
12/22/08
I think you'd have more of a market in custom models. I could be wrong, but I'd suspect that people would be more interested in copies of folks they know, rather than celebs. Legally just as bad, but much easier to do under the radar.
12/22/08
And I'm not (necessarily) referring to Donna Haraway's writings either.
12/22/08
Ahhheheheheheheh.