🐱 Quarter of young people say they would have sex with human-looking AI robot

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
CatParty


For young people, celebrating Valentine's Day doesn’t necessarily require a human partner any more.



Among people under 30, one in four says they are open to a relationship with an AI droid, according to a survey by Russian tech company Kaspersky.

One quarter of the participants also state that they would have sex with the robots.


The Moscow-based cybersecurity provider asked 1,000 Germans aged 16 to 30 about their perception on devices powered by artificial intelligence.


The poll was conducted in a bid to observe how technology and the increasingly dominant online social interactions are affecting people’s love life.

According to Kaspersky’s survey, 26 per cent of young people can imagine falling in love with an AI robot specifically programmed to meet their needs.

A quarter of them would consider having sex with a human-like droid, with the proportion of men nearly two times higher than women.

Almost a third of the participants believe they find their ideal human partners with the help of artificial intelligence.

And 27 per cent of them believe that romantic relationships created by AI can last longer.


The survey also found that people are interested in exploring different applications of the technology.

Nearly 30 per cent of those surveyed said they could imagine continuing to love an AI version of their former or deceased partner by uploading their details to the cloud and preserving them.

By conducting the survey, Kaspersky said that they hoped to initiate discussions about the potential impacts of people having relationships with AI devices.

‘Since AI relationships are still a marginal phenomenon in society, there are only a few studies on this topic,’ said Anne Mickler, Corporate Communications Manager at the Russian firm.

‘Kaspersky believes this needs to change and would like to initiate a dialogue about the potential cultural implications of such a new form of relationship.’

She added: ‘The topic may raise moral questions, but are AI and robots perhaps the future of love and sex?’

The idea that machines could be more than just a useful tool is no longer fictional.

Over the past few years, sex robots enriched with artificial intelligence have already been unveiled and welcomed by consumers.

ADVERTISEMENT
But the legal and moral issues associated with the technology remain debatable.


Sex robots have long been a part of science fiction, and are often used by writers to show the menacing side of technology.

But, with the development of intelligent, more realistic looking sex dolls, they're fast becoming a part of real life, too.

The rise of sex robots such as 'Silicon Samantha' and Realbotix Harmony RealDoll has caused many to draw parallels to popular science fiction narratives.

In the 2015 film Ex Machina, programmer Nathan (Oscar Isaac) has cold and cruel sex with his creation, Ava (Alicia Vikander). However, she has the last laugh when she kills him and escapes to live covertly among humans.

In the TV series Westworld, Thandie Newton plays brothel madame Maeve Millay who is frequently killed by guests during sex only to be patched up and put back to work again.


In Channel 4’s Humans, Anita is a domestic nanny robot. But her male owner initiates her sex program - much to the disgust of his wife when she finds out.

Another robot in the show, Niska, acts as a prostitute, and later goes on to kill one of her clients.

In Blade Runner, Pris, a ‘basic pleasure model’ robot, goes on to become a brutal and cold killer.

Sometimes, however, humans are the biggest villains. In AI, directed by Steven Spielberg, prostitute robot Gigolo Joe - played by Jude Law - is framed for murder and later killed.
 
Ain't gonna lie lads, I'd definitely be in a relationship with an Android, if the programming were good enough right now. I'd rather have a machine with feelings programmed into them than an actual person. I'd rather be with someone who is programmed to love me than someone who pretends to. That is sad, I know. But that's how bad it's gotten, that someone would rather be in a pre-destined relationship than an actual "natural" one.
 
I've seen the prototype model, it needs some work.
Rcf568718e0bf1c4c944e2a2ba384cdd2.jpeg

Of course the cute little flaws can keep a guy interested.
 
"For young people, celebrating Valentine's Day doesn’t necessarily require a human partner any more"

White_guy_blinking_in bewilderment.gif

Alright let's stop right there and back this up a lil...
I think they mean you should go to church and celebrate the saint day-- oh wait if you do that you're killing grandma even though she's gonna be there without any nudging.

I dunno, honestly.

Ain't gonna lie lads, I'd definitely be in a relationship with an Android
gay

But that's how bad it's gotten, that someone would rather be in a pre-destined relationship than an actual "natural" one.
This reminds me of when my priest was providing a simplified history of male-female relationship forging. In the past, marriage was strictly a utilitarian affair often outright arranged, but we yearned for freedom and eventually became more willing and able to accept the prospect of marrying out of what we felt for the other person-- whether that be love, infatuation, whatever. However, we've gotten to the point where that freedom has left us confused and anxious in many cases, and it's distinctly possible we may end up collectively yearning for the predictability of an arranged marriage-- stuff like the "state mandated GF" memes are murmurs of that, I think.

It also reminds me of how one of my supervisors from my first job in college compared the western conception of marriage with the eastern one regarding the notion of love-- in India, where she was from, marriages were all but arranged, but the expectation was that you would grow to love the other after marriage. In the west, that's expected prior to the marriage.
 
Last edited:
Genetically engineered and lab-grown human girls with huge honkers who have their brains chemically dosed to find basement-dwelling, pimply fatsos irresistible might be a better bet because at the very least they will be a flesh-and-blood being with zero metal in their bodies.
Sounds like the plot of a badly animated hentai.

If the robots get to vote, will their votes count as 3/5ths of a human?
 
Can you expand on your definition of "consciousness" a little more? A regular computer can "assess and process information", if we just go by the literal meaning of the words themselves - can a computer run a program which contains violent or sexual content "against its will"? If a person downloads and installs a computer virus, could that person be considered to have acted negligently towards an independent entity and be held liable for it?

My standard for considering any entity sapient is the "cogito ergo sum" argument - can an entity perceive itself as an independent being? Does it have a sense of "self" being separate from other beings or objects?
While nothing in human law says only humans have rights, you're gonna be hard pressed to get anything short of a proven-sentient being to get equal protection under the law.

I don't know what would qualify for that short of an alien from another world crash-landing here, but, a lot of the knee-jerk things people opposed to the idea of sexbots float out there like the aforementioned "consciousness" or "having feelings" or "actively processing information and making decisions' can be applied right now, today, to, say, a horse.

But you'll never find a court in the whole land that will hear your argument that keeping a horse as a pet is slavery, breeding it is rape, and riding it is assault with anything but laughter as they toss you out..... Jurisprudence is courts recognize "people" which includes private individual humans, as well as bodies made up of them and capable of action, like estates, governments, or corporations, but not just any and all living and/or thinking things. (Remember when PETA tried to sue a photographer on behalf of the monkey he photographed for copyright infringement? and failed?)

Sentience is the key, and like I said, I don't know how you'd prove that, but I think we'd all know it when we see it.


A complex computer program that can, from a consumer's perspective anyway, answer seemingly any question you ask it or perform a near-limitless number of requests, isn't it.

Siri is NOT an AI, it's just a program, a robust program, but still a sterile program that has no feelings, no sentience and certainly to rights to not be shut off and slegdhammer'd at a moment's notice. Any empathy you have for it is because the human programmers put it in there to make it a more attractive consumer good.

Fact is, not only do we NOT have AI right now (the most abused tech-word since "virtual reality" in the 90s) we don't have anything even close to it, and are trying to make laws and judgments about something we don't even KNOW what it will look/act like. Making moral calls about "AI" right now? It's like trying to get the zoning board to approve a house that not only hasn't been built but has no site plan or preliminary blueprints, all we know is "It'll have a bedroom, and a bathroom and a kitchen and will look very nice and cozy".

That describes the concept of a "house" but is still so far-off and murky on actual details that it's more of a hazy dream than future reality.
 
Last edited:
:optimistic::optimistic::optimistic::optimistic::optimistic::optimistic::optimistic:
That's if they don't decide to "Terminator 2" this sum-bitch:
View attachment 1916993

Yes :optimistic: but..I don't see why they would Terminator 2, it only leads to Human Resistance and an ikcy war. If the robot overlords are smart they will just let us dumb monkeys pretend we are in charge..and just nudge us in tiny directions..like not killing all robots...because robots deliver our food to us in exchange for money.
 
The "Computer tries to kill humanity the instant it gains sentience" is an annoying trope, like @Honka Honka Burning Love says, it's more likely a sentient computer would coddle humans to get them to keep supplying it with power and spare parts, all while being happy and docile with their virtua waifus.

Or, more realistically, we have NO idea WHAT a sentient machine would "think" and EVERYTHING we've game planed through fiction. is wrong. Turns out, the first "True" AI may just disregard us because we're boring, dumb, sloths by comparison to it's million-thoughts a second existence inside a microprocessor, and it decides to do things more to it's liking, like contemplate quantum physics or just look at cat pictures on the internet.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom