|
Romantic human-robot relationships are no longer the stuff of science fiction – researchers expect them to become reality within four decades.
And they do not mean simply, mechanical sex. “I am talking about loving relationships about 40 years from now,” David Levy, author of the book Love+sex with robots, said at an international conference held last week at the University of Maastricht in the south east of the country.
“… when there are robots that have also emotions, personality, consciousness. They can talk to you, they can make you laugh. They can … say they love you just like a human would say ‘I love you’, and say it as though they mean it …”
Robots as sex toys should already be on the market within five years, predicted Levy, “a sort of an upgrade of the sex dolls on sale now”.
These would have electronic speech and sensors that make them utter “nice sounds” when a human caresses their “erogenous zones”.
But to build robots as real partners would take a bit longer, with conversation skills being the main obstacle for developers.
Great. I guess there is hope for me after all.
This is a good idea until someone programs a robot that tell you it’s got a headache.
This article is great fodder for the religious right to equate the same sex marriage effort as a path to marriage with robots, animals and trees.
While funny for 90% of the people, the 10% fringe loony Christian wacko’s will sound the alarm bells.
>>While funny for 90% of the people, the 10%
>>fringe loony Christian wacko’s will sound the
>>alarm bells.
Dvorak’s Law! Dvorak’s Law!
Never happen !!! AI is the “Holy Grail” of Computer Science, but a machine can NEVER BE PROGRAMMED TO HAVE THE COMPLEX, TEMPORAL GOALS AND DESIRES AS A HUMAN !!! The programmer would have to include ALL OF HUMAN EMOTION – something that even humans don’t understand !!! And “Brain Science” is still pretty primitive …. So don’t hold your breath waiting for your “Plastic, Fantastic Lover” !!! And remember if it ever does arrive it will probably be made in China, and an hour later you will be horny again !!!
#3 – The xtians will be the first ones buying them. The gay bashing xtians will just want the wide stance, back door model and the priests will want the “little boy” model. The bible thumping, holier than though dorks will buy the homely, triple input model.
Oh man! 40% of the posts through #6 confirm the validity of Dvorak’s Law!
Robot sex? Bash the “Xhristians”. Secret tribes in the Amazon? Bash the “Xhristians”. Same-sex marriage, Windows Vista, open-source software, wireless routers, presidential election, karaoke machines, warrentless wiretapping? Bash the “Xhristians”.
The probability approaches 1 faster and faster with each blog entry.
Misery Law:
Christians are associated with at least 1/2 of mankind’s suffering, misery or injustice.
Seems like Dvorak’s Law is a mere derivative of the Misery Law given most posts here involve suffering, misery or injustice.
>>Misery Law:
>>Christians are associated with at least 1/2 of
>>mankind’s suffering, misery or injustice.
What the fuck are you talking about, Steers ‘n’ Queers? If you have any evidence to back up your mythical “misery law”, let’s see it.
In the alternative, STFU.
#9. First off, stop calling me a Steer.
I back up my “Misery law” by referencing your “Dvorak’s Law” which you took the opportunity to empirically prove.
Since once can associate Christians to your sample set of Suffering, Misery and Injustice posts, the law is proven mathematically within 3%.
>>First off, stop calling me a Steer.
What makes you think I was calling you a Steer? 😉
>>Since once can associate Christians to your sample
>>set of Suffering, Misery and Injustice posts, the
>>law is proven mathematically within 3%.
What the fuck are you talking about? You’re gibbering like a chimp, son. If you want validation of Dvorak’s Law, just look a any entry on this blog.
Your silly ad hominem attack on people of faith might as well be fulfilled with my sugesstion with the “All Christians are assholes” macro to insert the first entry into every thread.
Looks like about the same amount of thought went into both.
Mister Mustard said “All Christians are assholes.” I don’t know about all but the majority sure are.
Romantic human-robot relationships are no longer the stuff of science fiction – researchers expect them to become reality within four decades.
Uhm, if it hasn’t become reality then it’s STILL science fiction.
I am all for inorganic relationships.
I welcome clones, cyborgs, splicers and inorganics. The more the merrier.
Cursor_
All love is a projection of the self onto “others” with the others having any characteristic you can think of including not even existing.
Mustard, point of clarity. This thing you are calling Dvorak’s Law is very misleading. Kinda a copyright infringement of Dvorak’s good name. I have to remember you made this term up and it has nothing to do with Dvorak.
Shouldn’t you call it Mustard Sauce or something less misleading?
Mister Ketchup said I don’t know about all but the majority sure are.
You realize, of course, that the same thing can be said about Atheists?
Based on many years of careful observation, I’d say that the Asshole Quotient (AQ) may be even higher among self-proclaimed Atheists than among Christians.
#15 – Dvorak’s Law
Because The Law seems to manifest itself largely on dovorak dot org slash blog.
In any online discussion that goes on long enough, people end up calling each other assholes (or Nazis or Bible-thumpers, or whatever).
On the other hand, dvorak dot org slash blog seems to be a particularly fertile breeding ground for the militant, evangelical Christian haters who, when faced with something they have no cogent reply to, blurt out “y’all must be one a them thar asshole Christians”.
Check the last few days’ worth of posts (or even more). I read a number of blogs, and I’ve never seen such a close-knit community of Christian-haters as we have here.
Besides, much of the Christian-bashing stems from provocative entries (often of questionable reliability) by [Eds] here, and Mr. C. Dvorak has to assume responsibility for his [Eds].
The buck stops somewhere, son.
17–Mustard==yes, the buck. On this issue, the issue of Mustard Sauce, the buck stops with YOU. Godwin’s Law refers to the guy who made it up, not the blog that inspired him to do so. Same with you. You are making this up, your name should be the referenced source.
I’ve heard John C Dvorak respond 1-2 times that a focus of this blog is the wacky and unusual events that go on in this world. Seems wacked out nut balls would get coverage. People using religion to cover their wackiness, as well as charlatan politicians, and other mystical lunatics would of necessity be well represented here?
The size and temperature of the fire might be reduced if you stopped throwing gas on it? But I think you gain a perverse enjoyment from it. Still, when an item legitimately highlights some wacky religious dogma (creation museum seems right on point for a tech blog?), calling Mustard Sauce on it really only illustrates the point.
“..blah blah.. the Christian-bashing stems from provocative entries from Mr. C. Dvorak has to assume responsibility ..blah blah.. the buck stops somewhere, son…”
Now Mustard has turned into a condescending pontificator calling everyone “son” and making up his new “laws”. Sounds like the schmuck is practicing for priesthood or the second coming of Moses.
Bobster –
>>Still, when an item legitimately highlights
>>some wacky religious dogma
Many entries do not “highlight some wacky religious dogma”, they highlight wacky actions carried out by someone who, conincidentally, happens to be a soi-disant “Christian” (or whatever).
In any case, I’m referring more to entries that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion in any way, shape, or form. Look at the “right-to-die” thread for a perfect example.
It’s only a matter of time (and that time is getting shorter and shorter) until someone posts “Yeah, that’s really fucked up, the guy must be a Christian”, or something like that.
Maybe it’s just that dvorak dot org slash blog attracts intolerant, anti-Christian hatemongers. Who knows? In any case, this is pretty much the only place I see this sort of relentless Christian-bashing (and religion-bashing in general) no only occur, but get great encouragement.
#20–Mustard, the opposition to death with dignity is in the main christian religious based. Bashing religious types for interfering with the right to die with dignity should be expected as it is deserved. If you are against right to die, you are a nutbag fundie, if you are for it then you are a Nazi. Political speak in the trenches. Decalring Godwin’s Law in the latter case, and Mustard Sauce in the former are both inaccurate as the exception to the rule is adequately met given the close connection of the characterization with the subject matter.
I don’t see how this blog encourages your complaint other than by posting the original articles? Do you really want nutbag cases to be “balanced” by announcement of cake-sales and orphanage openings? Seems to me there would be enough of that “in church.”
The problem with too many bible thumpers is that they think they are being abused if the religion is not being praised 24/7. or worse they are being discriminated against if they are prohibited from forcing their garbage on other people thru the authority/tax revenues of the Federal or State government.
>>Mustard, the opposition to death with dignity
>>is in the main christian religious based.
Bobbolina, please do not confuse “Roman Catholicism” with “Christianity”.
Many Christians are strong supporters of the right to die with dignity.
How would you like it if every post on here said “ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass murder, and hate crimes are in the main Atheism-based”?
Give it a rest with your stereotyping already, will you? Do you think all people of African descent spit watermelon seeds?
Bigotry does not become you.
#23–Mustard–nice try, and probably honest on your part but totally wrong. The opposition to death with dignity comes from christian doctrine. That statement is true and does not imply that all christian sects adhere to it. Roman Catholics allow for withdrawal of artificial life support so your statement is doubly wrong. To be fair, yes, catholics do not support active euthanasia which is part of the death with dignity philosophy.
I don’t know why religion just doesn’t concern itself with what it or its own members/adherents do and why they cause such trouble by trying to force their beliefs on others thru opertion of law.
Its simple–don’t believe in death with dignity==suffer for as long as you think god wants you to. Leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
Argument is the same, but more complicated for most of the conflicts between religion and reason.
>>Leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
Words to live by, for all faiths, including Atheism.
>>Argument is the same, but more complicated
>>for most of the conflicts between religion
>>and reason.
If you think religion and reason are mutually exlusive, you’re even dumber than you look.
Mustard said: Bobbolina, please do not confuse “Roman Catholicism” with “Christianity”.
So, are you Matthew and Luke kind of guy: He who is not with me is against me.
Or are you a Mark kind of kind of guy: Whoever is not against us is for us.
Less arguing, more robot fucking plz
#26 – Cubie
I’m my own kind of guy:
As long as what I’m doing doesn’t have an impact on your life, leave me the fuck alone.
Spicy, huh? Now that’s good mustard.
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” – Bertrand Russell
Religion vs Reason is a commonly used dichotomy. Of course you don’t “like” it.
You are correct, bobbo. DU is not and never has been a ‘tech blog’
#28: Unfortunately, many religious types try to inflict their beliefs on others. If they would just stay out of government, stay out of the schools, stay out of science and all the other places where religion doesn’t belong and especially stop abusing children, mentally and physically, and this will be a better world.