Would it really be a bad thing? May the incels will get laid and move on. Maybe the guy who gets rejected will go home and fuck his bot instead of stalking the girl who rejected him.
And maybe girls won’t have to take it in the ass even though they don’t really want to, but feel like they have to. They can say, just fuck the bot in the ass.
Marriage rates will probably decline, and so will total divorces after a while. Which means less kids raised in split or single households.
Plenty of good “could” cum from this.
All those things could be more readily solved by just legalizing and de-stigmatizing sex work. AI sex bots actively harm that industry by taking work away from humans, just like how a hypothetical AI acting bot would harm the acting industry.
The work could be done cheaper by robots, presumably. And sure, I’m all for legalized sex work. But if a machine can do it better, faster, and cheaper - why not? Fleshlights exist - are you opposed to those because they take work from sex workers? Ludditism always fails - if human sex workers are still around after we have fully functioning sex bots, it is because they can provide something the bots can’t. And I think this will be the case - at the end of the day, we know on a deep level that there is a difference between fucking a bot and fucking a real human.
You’re really setting yourself up for disappointment here. You’ve created a dichotomy - either we should avoid automating things which can be automated (which isn’t going to happen - consumers like low prices and shareholders like higher profits), or we should transition to a moneyless society (which is also not going to happen, money is useful and everyone likes it).
Morally? I don’t think there is a moral component here. It’s like saying earthquakes are morally wrong. Technological innovation happens when its time comes, and trying to stop it is akin to trying to stop an earthquake. Sure, you can choose not to use the tech if you don’t want to, but others will. You can form comminities which agree not to use the tech (like the Amish), but those outsude your communities will use the tech. You might even get your government to ban the tech - but then you end up with the war on drugs, or south america style inflation, or North Korean levels of policing.
If you want to wax poetic about the wonderful work of hand-weaving textiles, be my guest. But I will very happyly wear a machine-woven shirt for a fraction of the cost so that I can spend my money on something else that I value more.
No, not morally. What? The Luddites have not always been wrong about the adoption of a particular technology ultimately being a net negative on society/individuals/humanity. Citing their “failure” as a reason to blindly champion any use of technology is kind of weird.
Luddites “fail” to hold back technology insofar as many technologies are indeed adopted, but that doesn’t mean their message of temperance has never had any effect on how technology is adopted, or that all technologies have improved life on Earth. And of course not all technology has taken off. Yes, it’s hard to stop a moving train once an idea is getting popular, but we all get to choose whether to climb aboard. I wonder why it seems to ruffle your feathers to hear from people who don’t.
I’ve heard far too many stories about how ChatGPT inflames the narcissistic tendencies of the people who use it and turns them into unbearable assholes. I can’t imagine how adding a pocketpussy or vibrator to the device will improve things.
Still won’t address emotional needs, whether those needs be healthy or unhealthy. If a robot could actually satisfy, why doesn’t jacking off work as well as actually getting laid? Same difference with a bot.
Jacking off isn’t the same. But can a robot satisfy… well that we don’t know really. Maybe it can, maybe it can’t. I was going on the assumption that it could for this conversation.
May the incels will get laid and move on. Maybe the guy who gets rejected will go home and fuck his bot instead of stalking the girl who rejected him.
Doubtful - these actions are driven by emotions, not the need to get off. If it were the latter, they could just jerk off at home today and they wouldnt do these things.
They can say, just fuck the bot in the ass.
They can currently just say “no”… I’m not sure why we need sex bots to save us from being bad at communicating.
Marriage rates will probably decline, and so will total divorces after a while
Again, doubt. If you are getting married for the sake of having sex, then you are probably in some kind of restrictive religion. And these religions will probably tell you that fucking a bot is an abomination. If you aren’t, then you’ll marry for the same reasons people marry today, and marriage and divorce will stay at about the same rate.
You don’t seem to understand the role sexual desire plays in the decisions people make. And I am going to assume you aren’t male. Cause jerking off is simply not the same as sex.
For starters, jerking off and having sex are not equal.
Next you think straight up saying no to a sexual desire is the same as redirection.
Last, you don’t think the desire to get laid is a driver for guys dating girls which eventually leads to marrying them. There are exceptions, but sexual desire is the first thing to drive most men to date. They my find other value later, but that won’t matter if they don’t start.
For starters, jerking off and having sex are not equal.
I agree. My point is that having sex with a robot is more akin to jerking off than having sex with a human. Like I said, fleshlights exist. Sex dolls exist. A sex robot would simply be another iteration.
Next you think straight up saying no to a sexual desire is the same as redirection.
I think people should just say no to things they don’t want to do.
Last, you don’t think the desire to get laid is a driver for guys dating girls which eventually leads to marrying them.
Again, I think putting your dick in a robot is more akin to jerking off. Hence the rate of marriage and divorce not changing. People will continue getting married for dumb reasons. They will just be the same dumb reasons as before.
Also, btw, I’m a heterosexual man with a high sex drive.
Your using what sex with s robot would be right now. The post is talking about in ten years. Ten years from now it will be drastically different than a fleshlight or current sex dolls. I would expect it would be able to move on it’s own, probably enough to get into different positions. It will also probably be able to respond to commands/requests and maybe even physical movements of the user. And of course, AI can already pretend to be a real person with “some” success. Narrowing that scope from conversation to just sex should enable it to perform even better verbally.
Again, these improved features might make it a more enjoyable experience - but it still won’t be sex. The person who owns the robot will know it. It won’t scratch the emotional itch that is wanting to have sex - at least not until the AI gains sentience, and has the right and ability to turn you down and/or tell you you just aren’t that great in the sack.
Most of history is full of men pillaging and raping to get sex. And they were willing to possibly die to get that sex in which the women had no choice. She couldn’t turn them down. If she told them they weren’t good in the sack, they would beat her, maybe kill her. So I don’t think that emotional itch is anywhere near as strong as you think. As always there are exceptions, but history shows those exceptions are a small minority.
these actions are driven by emotions, not the need to get off. If it were the latter, they could just jerk off at home today and they wouldnt do these things.
You can’t separate the two. It doesnt work like that. The need to get off is intertwined with multiple emotions. Plus if the bot could talk back to you it would change the equation as you can’t go home and talk to your dick and have an actual conversation. This anthropomorphic quality would change the outcome of the thought pattern.
They can currently just say no
Thats just “what were you wearing” dressed up different. Saying no can be hard, especially for teenagers who want to fit in. It can become easier when there is a clear and painless alternative to suggest.
Again, doubt. If you are getting married for the sake of having sex, then you are probably in some kind of restrictive religion.
A lot of people are getting marries for the wrong reasons, divorce rates are extremely high. This probably would stop at least a noticeable percentage of people from getting married with hormones blazing.
All of this is just speculation, but I dont think the results of unleashing sex bots are as clear cut as you suggest.
Why do people do this, just pull apart someone’s comment, dismiss and disregard everything they say. No questions. Just, bam bam bam, you’re wrong on all counts, because my opinion thinks you are wrong and my opinion is somehow more valid than yours. Do you talk to people like this irl. Wtf.
Do you not? Someone says something that sounds likely false. So I say “I don’t think that is true”. And then we can discuss whether or not it is likely true.
Those are opinions, not facts. Opinions are not facts. That’s just what you think and feel, relevant only to you. Your opinion doesn’t shoot someone else’s opinion down, if they differ, that just means you disagree. If you disagree with someone, you come off douchey af if you try and tell them they’re wrong, because you have a different opinion. You are better off (as in you come across less douchey) if you just ask people about their opinions, if they differ to yours, because, that expands your ability to understand more about the world. If you stay in your own little echo chamber, and never step outside your comfort zone, your mind stays small.
But to answer your other question, I would not say “that sounds likely false” to someone, that instantly puts you on the defensive and I actually want to know, if someone has different information than me, or has formed a different opinion, I want to know why. If I know they’re definitely wrong, I ask questions that lead them to the conclusion, without having to say, you’ve been duped by propaganda, because if they aren’t capable of coming to that conclusion on their own, they won’t take it from me in another way, anyway. People don’t respond well to being told, straight up, they’re wrong, that’s not a way to discuss, and it doesn’t work to help people change their minds.
Would it really be a bad thing? May the incels will get laid and move on. Maybe the guy who gets rejected will go home and fuck his bot instead of stalking the girl who rejected him. And maybe girls won’t have to take it in the ass even though they don’t really want to, but feel like they have to. They can say, just fuck the bot in the ass. Marriage rates will probably decline, and so will total divorces after a while. Which means less kids raised in split or single households. Plenty of good “could” cum from this.
Yeah but can a sex bot piss in my mouth while sucking my dick while I yell “but mommy I don’t like apple juice”?
What a horrible day to be literate.
Of course
Probably of you mod it right
Shoot, with the right mods, you can do all that and replace all the piss with champagne.
Gross. Champagne. Ee.
ಠ_ಠ
When these sex bots come out you’re gonna have to get a top of the line edition to do all that.
You just HAD to wait until the end, didn’t you?
Keeping you on edge?
Stop that.
Then start again. And stop. Then go slowly. Stop again…
MOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM! THEY’RE MAKIN DIRTY JOKES AND I DON LIKE EM!!!
All those things could be more readily solved by just legalizing and de-stigmatizing sex work. AI sex bots actively harm that industry by taking work away from humans, just like how a hypothetical AI acting bot would harm the acting industry.
I mean your right, but if I were to guess which is more likely, sex bots takes the win.
Sure, I was just pushing back on the “wouldn’t AI sex bots be good actually” take
Get yer pitchforks! They’re a’coming for our blowjerbs!
The work could be done cheaper by robots, presumably. And sure, I’m all for legalized sex work. But if a machine can do it better, faster, and cheaper - why not? Fleshlights exist - are you opposed to those because they take work from sex workers? Ludditism always fails - if human sex workers are still around after we have fully functioning sex bots, it is because they can provide something the bots can’t. And I think this will be the case - at the end of the day, we know on a deep level that there is a difference between fucking a bot and fucking a real human.
Just because we can automate something, doesn’t mean we should. At least not until we live in a moneyless society.
You’re really setting yourself up for disappointment here. You’ve created a dichotomy - either we should avoid automating things which can be automated (which isn’t going to happen - consumers like low prices and shareholders like higher profits), or we should transition to a moneyless society (which is also not going to happen, money is useful and everyone likes it).
I think I’ll be ok, but thanks for your concern
But not necessarily because they were wrong.
Morally? I don’t think there is a moral component here. It’s like saying earthquakes are morally wrong. Technological innovation happens when its time comes, and trying to stop it is akin to trying to stop an earthquake. Sure, you can choose not to use the tech if you don’t want to, but others will. You can form comminities which agree not to use the tech (like the Amish), but those outsude your communities will use the tech. You might even get your government to ban the tech - but then you end up with the war on drugs, or south america style inflation, or North Korean levels of policing.
If you want to wax poetic about the wonderful work of hand-weaving textiles, be my guest. But I will very happyly wear a machine-woven shirt for a fraction of the cost so that I can spend my money on something else that I value more.
No, not morally. What? The Luddites have not always been wrong about the adoption of a particular technology ultimately being a net negative on society/individuals/humanity. Citing their “failure” as a reason to blindly champion any use of technology is kind of weird.
Luddites “fail” to hold back technology insofar as many technologies are indeed adopted, but that doesn’t mean their message of temperance has never had any effect on how technology is adopted, or that all technologies have improved life on Earth. And of course not all technology has taken off. Yes, it’s hard to stop a moving train once an idea is getting popular, but we all get to choose whether to climb aboard. I wonder why it seems to ruffle your feathers to hear from people who don’t.
you’re right, but consider: unless we’re going even farther down the subscription shithole, a sexbot would be a one time purchase.
They are definitely going to make the personality updates and features all subscription based.
I’ve heard far too many stories about how ChatGPT inflames the narcissistic tendencies of the people who use it and turns them into unbearable assholes. I can’t imagine how adding a pocketpussy or vibrator to the device will improve things.
Still won’t address emotional needs, whether those needs be healthy or unhealthy. If a robot could actually satisfy, why doesn’t jacking off work as well as actually getting laid? Same difference with a bot.
Jacking off isn’t the same. But can a robot satisfy… well that we don’t know really. Maybe it can, maybe it can’t. I was going on the assumption that it could for this conversation.
Doubtful - these actions are driven by emotions, not the need to get off. If it were the latter, they could just jerk off at home today and they wouldnt do these things.
They can currently just say “no”… I’m not sure why we need sex bots to save us from being bad at communicating.
Again, doubt. If you are getting married for the sake of having sex, then you are probably in some kind of restrictive religion. And these religions will probably tell you that fucking a bot is an abomination. If you aren’t, then you’ll marry for the same reasons people marry today, and marriage and divorce will stay at about the same rate.
You don’t seem to understand the role sexual desire plays in the decisions people make. And I am going to assume you aren’t male. Cause jerking off is simply not the same as sex.
I’m confused why you think that, and don’t think you understand the point I was making. Would you please elaborate?
For starters, jerking off and having sex are not equal. Next you think straight up saying no to a sexual desire is the same as redirection. Last, you don’t think the desire to get laid is a driver for guys dating girls which eventually leads to marrying them. There are exceptions, but sexual desire is the first thing to drive most men to date. They my find other value later, but that won’t matter if they don’t start.
I agree. My point is that having sex with a robot is more akin to jerking off than having sex with a human. Like I said, fleshlights exist. Sex dolls exist. A sex robot would simply be another iteration.
I think people should just say no to things they don’t want to do.
Again, I think putting your dick in a robot is more akin to jerking off. Hence the rate of marriage and divorce not changing. People will continue getting married for dumb reasons. They will just be the same dumb reasons as before.
Also, btw, I’m a heterosexual man with a high sex drive.
Your using what sex with s robot would be right now. The post is talking about in ten years. Ten years from now it will be drastically different than a fleshlight or current sex dolls. I would expect it would be able to move on it’s own, probably enough to get into different positions. It will also probably be able to respond to commands/requests and maybe even physical movements of the user. And of course, AI can already pretend to be a real person with “some” success. Narrowing that scope from conversation to just sex should enable it to perform even better verbally.
Again, these improved features might make it a more enjoyable experience - but it still won’t be sex. The person who owns the robot will know it. It won’t scratch the emotional itch that is wanting to have sex - at least not until the AI gains sentience, and has the right and ability to turn you down and/or tell you you just aren’t that great in the sack.
Most of history is full of men pillaging and raping to get sex. And they were willing to possibly die to get that sex in which the women had no choice. She couldn’t turn them down. If she told them they weren’t good in the sack, they would beat her, maybe kill her. So I don’t think that emotional itch is anywhere near as strong as you think. As always there are exceptions, but history shows those exceptions are a small minority.
You can’t separate the two. It doesnt work like that. The need to get off is intertwined with multiple emotions. Plus if the bot could talk back to you it would change the equation as you can’t go home and talk to your dick and have an actual conversation. This anthropomorphic quality would change the outcome of the thought pattern.
Thats just “what were you wearing” dressed up different. Saying no can be hard, especially for teenagers who want to fit in. It can become easier when there is a clear and painless alternative to suggest.
A lot of people are getting marries for the wrong reasons, divorce rates are extremely high. This probably would stop at least a noticeable percentage of people from getting married with hormones blazing.
All of this is just speculation, but I dont think the results of unleashing sex bots are as clear cut as you suggest.
Why do people do this, just pull apart someone’s comment, dismiss and disregard everything they say. No questions. Just, bam bam bam, you’re wrong on all counts, because my opinion thinks you are wrong and my opinion is somehow more valid than yours. Do you talk to people like this irl. Wtf.
Do you not? Someone says something that sounds likely false. So I say “I don’t think that is true”. And then we can discuss whether or not it is likely true.
Those are opinions, not facts. Opinions are not facts. That’s just what you think and feel, relevant only to you. Your opinion doesn’t shoot someone else’s opinion down, if they differ, that just means you disagree. If you disagree with someone, you come off douchey af if you try and tell them they’re wrong, because you have a different opinion. You are better off (as in you come across less douchey) if you just ask people about their opinions, if they differ to yours, because, that expands your ability to understand more about the world. If you stay in your own little echo chamber, and never step outside your comfort zone, your mind stays small.
But to answer your other question, I would not say “that sounds likely false” to someone, that instantly puts you on the defensive and I actually want to know, if someone has different information than me, or has formed a different opinion, I want to know why. If I know they’re definitely wrong, I ask questions that lead them to the conclusion, without having to say, you’ve been duped by propaganda, because if they aren’t capable of coming to that conclusion on their own, they won’t take it from me in another way, anyway. People don’t respond well to being told, straight up, they’re wrong, that’s not a way to discuss, and it doesn’t work to help people change their minds.