The Future of Love and Sex - Robots 510
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.
The 11th factor (Score:5, Interesting)
Because they are not robots.
Falling in love in 50 years? (Score:2, Interesting)
The Lonely (Score:4, Interesting)
Deamon Seed (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone remember "Deamon Seed" or the more recent Battle Star Galatica.
Can you rape a robot?
Can a robot rape you?
Re:Falling in love in 50 years? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Emotionally Stunted (Score:3, Interesting)
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
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.
Re:Grrr (Score:5, 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.
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.
one generation left for humanity... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:50 years? Try 50 minutes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is not unprecedented. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Falling in love in 50 years? (Score:3, Interesting)
It won't take much before we see people "falling in love" with robots.
Re:Grrr (Score:2, Interesting)
Every mechanical device fail eventually. The only variables are when and how painful...
Re:From Agnes - With Love (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Falling in love in 50 years? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Grrr (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Grrr (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Falling in love in 50 years? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [lyrics007.com], 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?
Re:Grrr (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:From Agnes - With Love (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:From Agnes - With Love (Score:4, Interesting)
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.