If somebody wants to have an “AI” sexbot, whether physical or digital, this isn’t anybody else’s concern. Ideally, these should not be connected to the internet, but updated through USB or done other offline method to protect users. But at the end, if this is what an individual would prefer over an actual relationship, then so be it, you probably don’t want to be in a relationship with this person anyway. The outcry seems to come from this idea that men (let’s face it, there’s no stigma around women and their sexual preferences or toys) who are undesirable to others should just be lonely and mocked for even using the most basic of sex toys/services. Let these folks have their sex toys and leave them alone, it doesn’t bother you.
Purity culture affects everyone in different ways. Sex bots, toys sold in Walmart, YouTubers having sex toy sponsors…all of that adds up to tearing down these old social norms that have roots in religious dogma, and it’s long past time we left that archaic thinking behind.
I wasn’t trying to imply there wasn’t issues women face around sex, just that issues with sex toys and preferences (the sex toys have “unrealistic standards” for women) mentioned in the article are specific to men.
Oh, I know. I was agreeing and my own two cents
I’m actually really interested, from a societal perspective, to see what widespread availability of sexbots does to marriage and population statistics.
I could definitely see this having an impact, how great that impact is would depend on technological advancements and social factors. Populations are already on a decline in many countries for myriad reasons. The only arguments I’ve seen about this being a bad thing are primarily focused on the ruling classes concerns, i.e. “the economy.” There maybe some mild concerns for the average person, but if we survive what we’ve done to the planet, overall I think it will be beneficial in the long term for the world population to decrease. Marriages are also in decline, but if all that a marriage is based on is sex, that probably isn’t a marriage worth being in. IMO, our species going quietly into the night isn’t the worst future, lol.
The biggest danger with allowing people to do whatever they want to a sex bot is that it has the possibility to encourage dangerous behavior in some people to the point where they are comfortable doing it to a real person. Especially as these bots get more and more life-like, from appearances to LLM conversations. Rape fantasies, abuse, etc, are all on the table when no one is around. Now of course, this is an extreme hypothetical, but there are people out there who are not-right in the head and will do this sort of stuff.
The other part of it is, what’s to stop a business selling life-like sex bots of people who never agreed to that, like big celebrities and social media stars? Sex sells and it’ll be a reality way before regulations are put in to stop it from happening. And even when a government prohibits it, there’s always the black market.
It’s not even a matter of IF this will happen. It’s a matter of when, and how we will deal with it.
And while I say all this, I DO believe people should have the right to do whatever they want to their property, in the safety and privacy of their own home. I’m not saying people should not be allowed to buy themselves really fancy sex dolls. For some, it can really be the only way to help with one of the most instinctual needs a human has. Especially in the disabled/disfigured communities, having a way to release that sexual frustration improves their mental well-being.
But as technology continues to evolve, we have to take into account so the different forms it takes, both the beneficial and the ugly.
The biggest danger with allowing people to do whatever they want to a sex bot is that it has the possibility to encourage dangerous behavior in some people to the point where they are comfortable doing it to a real person.
This tired old argument gets trotted out with every new technology and hobby. D&D, Video games, VR, etc etc.
While I agree that there’s is always some sort of fear mongering with new tech as you said, I don’t think they compare to what we’re talking about. D&D is a tabletop game based on a magical world of various races, monsters, demons, etc. It’s also obviously just a game.
Video games, especially violent ones that are vilified by the media, are still obviously just games played on a screen. VR is getting closer to “real life”, but is still played on a headset, so there is still a divide between in-game and real life.
With sex bots, they are physical things that are made to look and act like real people. That separation between imagination and real-world isn’t there anymore. For all intents and purposes, once the bot is on and functional it is as close to a real person as technology can create. Now, this tech is not yet a reality. But I foresee that future in the next few years.
For all intents and purposes, (…) as close to a real person as technology can create.
Again, I point you towards video games and how they got blamed for violence. You could have used the same statement about them 20 years ago.
This entire block is baffling to me:
Users aren’t entirely blameless, either. There’s something vicious about replacing a real human being with a totally submissive lust machine.
Early studies suggest narcissism is prevalent among users of this technology. Normalising harmful sexual behaviours such as rape, sadism or paedophilia is bad news for society.
All of this made me think people using these bots were found to be narcissistic in the linked study and seems to connect this with the listed harmful sexual behaviors. Instead, the linked study found that attitudes toward digital immortality (specifically through creation of AI bots that can live on after your death) are linked to narcissistic personality traits. This seems entirely unrelated to the topic and it seems manipulative to throw it in there like this.
Good catch! Thanks for checking the source.
More people declining to get married and/or procreate is the problem the government should watch out for. And instead of banning sexbots, they should make having a child easier. Make it so low and middle income people in their early twenties can buy a house. Make it so women can take maternity leave without setting their career back years. Make it so father/non-carrier parents get parental leave at all. Make it so a sick kid doesn’t destroy a family’s finances forever. Make it so women have adequate protection pre and post sexual interaction so that the risks of getting it on are not as high.
AI sex bots are far from the most impactful thing driving people away from having kids.
Tho even in countries which have all these things, the birth rate is still low.
And needs to be even lower. Rich people use too many resources and the planet is being destroyed.
All I hear is we need to start culling the super rich.
Seem much smarter and humane to redistribute the resources, and direct most of those resources to find resource efficient processes.
One of my friends wanted kids. She has a full time job in software and does side gigs like bartending. Can’t afford kids, so she didn’t have any. It’s sad.
Meanwhile the ultra wealthy have more money than they can spend.
Nationalize health care. Basic income. Public housing. Enforce existing tax laws. Tax or prohibit bullshit like “I’ll get a loan against my assets but that’s not technically income so I don’t pay anything”. Break up monopolies.
The current global population growth rate is unsustainable. Are you speaking only in terms of country dominance/output? Globally, shouldn’t we be encouraging less kids and contraception accessibility?
The current global population growth rate is unsustainable.
That’s a myth. The current global population growth rate is dropping precipitously and is expected to hit negative rates within this century. The fertility rate per woman is at 2.3, from a peak of 5.3 in the 60s. That’s barely above replacement level. At current trends we’ll be at replacement level in a couple decades.
Income in societies (not only market economies, but all economies with some kind of money) is a function of one’s relative power in the society. There’s nothing absolute in one’s income in money (as universal equivalent) connected to productive powers’ development.
If that power is mostly held by government bureaucrats and corporations, naturally the conditions for population growth will not be very good.
And government bureaucracy and corporations like each other because they can have some balance of power while trampling everyone else, so government bureaucracy will not fight corporations to death.
Good luck.
If this is you, then build your own home server. Encrypt all the things. Make a stop gap from the Internet. Realize that your personal data is very valuable to predatory groups and governments. Never trust the cloud.
Damn, sounds easier just to fuck humans
Would that it were, captain, would that it were.
You want those humans to be air gapped to the internet too.
If this is you, then build your own home server.
While I don’t disagree, there’s also a very considerable cost difference here between running locally and remotely.
If a user sets up an AI chatbot, then has their compute card under average 24/7 load of 1% – which would require averaging, say, a daily session for an hour with the thing averaging 25% of its compute capacity during that session – then the hardware costs for a local setup would be 100x that of a remote setup that spreads load evenly across users.
That is, if someone can find a commercial service that they can trust not to log the contents, the economics definitely permit room for that service to cost less.
That becomes particularly significant if one wants to run a model that requires a substantial amount of on-card memory. I haven’t been following closely, but it looks like the compute card vendors intend to use amount of memory on-card to price discriminate between the “commercial AI” and “consumer gaming” market. That permits charging a relatively large amount for a relatively small amount of additional memory on-card.
So an Nvidia H100 with 80GB onboard runs about (checks) $30k, and a consumer Geforce 4090 with 24GB is about $2k.
An AMD MI300 with 128GB onboard runs about (checks) $20k, and a consumer Radeon XT 7900 XTX with 24GB is about $1k.
That is, at current hardware pricing, the economics make a lot of sense to time-share the hardware across multiple users.
You can’t truly trust any commercial service.
Strange New Question: “How much suction should the robot employ?”
Risks: Weiner getting sucked off. Literally.
Ah, yet more inharmable cylinders found to be encased in containers, lined with (checks notes) microwaved banana.
That’s actually a really interesting part of AI I’d never considered to be a threat, thanks for sharing the link!
Degenerate robosexuals isn’t something to get your panties in a bunch about. The real worry is when people modify the useful chatbots to provide more interesting insights into creative sexuality. There’s a subject braindead journos can’t even contemplate, yet I doubt I’m the only one thinking about it.
You mean like with applications for enhancing fraud, false advertising, demagogery, identity theft against the more general population something like that?
I’d be worried about that type of thing, I’m not sure sexbots are necessarily critical to that, but It can’t hurt.
