Child sized sex robots?

[Jolly_Penguin]

Check out Sam Harris's fascinating conversation with Kate Darling on AI and the future of robots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-a5f12ao6w

Around the 24:00 mark they start talking about virtual child porn and child sized sex robots and if they should be legal or illegal, and if they would be likely to give pedophiles an outlet or encourage them to abuse real life children.

Thoughts?

Thoughts in general on the future of robots? Should we discourage people from torturing or destroying robots that we know are not in any way sentient, but very much draw empathy because of how they look and react? Could that cause people to be more callous and violent to real people?

Violent videogames don't seem to have that effect.

This looks like it could be a very interesting social debate in the near to distant future.

 

[Lion IRC]

Hedonistic utilitarianism has lots of supporters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Torture robots--I would call this a bad idea. The actual demand for torture victims is low enough I think the encouragement aspect would exceed the displacement aspect.

Child sex robots--the numbers are the other way around here, thus I think it would be a good idea.

 

[bigfield]

Thoughts in general on the future of robots? Should we discourage people from torturing or destroying robots that we know are not in any way sentient, but very much draw empathy because of how they look and react? Could that cause people to be more callous and violent to real people?

Violent videogames don't seem to have that effect.

This looks like it could be a very interesting social debate in the near to distant future.

As we learned with violence in video games, this kind of discussion is useless without evidence.

One can claim that virtual child porn and child robots may normalise child rape and molestation, but it would be reckless to legislate against such technology unless that link can be supported with evidence, because one can also claim that porn and robots may provide a safe, legal means to satisfy people's urges, sparing human victims. You can point to examples of both of these phenomena in human society with respect to other activities, but as Sam Harris suggests, the only practical way to know the effects of such technology is to "count the bodies" and see whether victimisation is up or down.

My prediction is that only a few rich people will ever be able to buy or hire sex robots that pass for human. So you may never see a meaningful effect either way.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

[
My prediction is that only a few rich people will ever be able to buy or hire sex robots that pass for human. So you may never see a meaningful effect either way.

I see that as a function of time. Eventually, we could have robots as realistic as the ones in WestWorld (great show BTW that I hadn't heard of before listening to this podcast)

 

[ryan]

Very interesting, so I think we are going to have to define a point where sufficiently complex A.I. receives human rights, sort of how we define the point of human life in the whom and the baby's rights.

In other words, we "make babies" in the whom, so why are these babies more important than babies/children that we "make" in a computer lab?

 

[Bronzeage]

Suppose we could synthesize a bourbon substitute which had the exact same flavor and texture as real bourbon, but contained no alcohol and had no intoxicating effects. Would this reduce the incidents of driving while intoxicated?

Is there any reason to believe this idea would protect real children? There is a logic behind it, but does it actually work?

 

[bilby]

Suppose we could synthesize a bourbon substitute which had the exact same flavor and texture as real bourbon, but contained no alcohol and had no intoxicating effects. Would this reduce the incidents of driving while intoxicated?

Is there any reason to believe this idea would protect real children? There is a logic behind it, but does it actually work?

Surely that question is the wrong way about - you wouldn't restrict the sales of Ersatz Bourbon because it didn't reduce the incidence of DUI; Rather you would be justified in restricting it only if you could show that it increased the incidence of DUI.

If child-sized sex dolls increased the risk to real children, then restricting or banning them would make perfect sense; But if they don't have any effect at all, and therefore don't reduce the risk to children, banning them protects children in the same way that banning the wearing of green socks protects children - after all, green socks do nothing to reduce child rape.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thoughts in general on the future of robots? Should we discourage people from torturing or destroying robots that we know are not in any way sentient, but very much draw empathy because of how they look and react? Could that cause people to be more callous and violent to real people?

Violent videogames don't seem to have that effect.

This looks like it could be a very interesting social debate in the near to distant future.

As we learned with violence in video games, this kind of discussion is useless without evidence.

One can claim that virtual child porn and child robots may normalise child rape and molestation, but it would be reckless to legislate against such technology unless that link can be supported with evidence, because one can also claim that porn and robots may provide a safe, legal means to satisfy people's urges, sparing human victims. You can point to examples of both of these phenomena in human society with respect to other activities, but as Sam Harris suggests, the only practical way to know the effects of such technology is to "count the bodies" and see whether victimisation is up or down.

My prediction is that only a few rich people will ever be able to buy or hire sex robots that pass for human. So you may never see a meaningful effect either way.

I disagree--I see no reason to think that there's any technology that will be forever limited to the super rich except those whose scale simply does not permit the average person to have it. (For example, asteroid bases. There aren't enough suitable asteroids for everyone to have one.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Torture robots--I would call this a bad idea. The actual demand for torture victims is low enough I think the encouragement aspect would exceed the displacement aspect.

Child sex robots--the numbers are the other way around here, thus I think it would be a good idea.

Expanding on my answer:

The person who wants to torture wants the victim to suffer. A robot does not provide this.

The pedophile wants sex with something that looks like a child. The robot provides this.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The person who wants to torture wants the victim to suffer. A robot does not provide this.

I'm not so sure about that. No, it doesn't provide real suffering, but may still make the torturer feel like he is inflicting suffering, which may be enough. In the podcast I linked above, they talk about how we feel empathy for robots already existing, knowing full well that they are not sentient.

People find it oddly difficult on a base empathic level to destroy perfectly non-sentient robots that look even slightly human. Give it a face, and its harder to "kill", except of course for sadists, who may get off on it.

So torture robots. Is torturing a robot a step towards dong it to real humans, like picking wings off a fly or hurting animals is often said to be a step towards it?

 

[another1]

I'm picturing warming mechanisms and artificial tear ducts that pump out fluid every time the pedophile pumps away at the tiny synthetic loins. Realistic crying sounds and programmable calls for help. Do you think pedophiles would get into trouble for simulating kidnappings with their child sex dolls? What if it isn't on school property? That would be a tough call. I'd say hey at least it isn't a real kid. It was just the self-irrigating torture-toddler doll 2000. I'm not clicking any of that. What is the name of this company and what are the dolls named?

 

[ksen]

We should probably also outlaw sex with anyone shorter than 5 feet tall.

Just in case.

 

[Rayschism]

Midgets are child sized.

 

[ksen]

that's racist

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm picturing warming mechanisms and artificial tear ducts that pump out fluid every time the pedophile pumps away at the tiny synthetic loins. Realistic crying sounds and programmable calls for help. Do you think pedophiles would get into trouble for simulating kidnappings with their child sex dolls? What if it isn't on school property? That would be a tough call. I'd say hey at least it isn't a real kid. It was just the self-irrigating torture-toddler doll 2000. I'm not clicking any of that. What is the name of this company and what are the dolls named?

Pedophiles do not want to cause harm, they want to have sex with a child.

(It's possible for someone to be both a pedophile and a sadist, though.)

- - - Updated - - -

We should probably also outlaw sex with anyone shorter than 5 feet tall.

Just in case.

<Shoots ksen>

My wife is 4' 10".

 

[Rayschism]

Pedophiles do not want to cause harm, they want to have sex with a child.

(It's possible for someone to be both a pedophile and a sadist, though.)

- - - Updated - - -

We should probably also outlaw sex with anyone shorter than 5 feet tall.

Just in case.

<Shoots ksen>

My wife is 4' 10".

Sex with a child does not cause them harm?

 

[another1]

Pedophiles do not want to cause harm, they want to have sex with a child.

(It's possible for someone to be both a pedophile and a sadist, though.)

Yeah it is pretty violent to rape and molest a child. A child goes missing every forty seconds. Can they keep up the demand in the factories? Sounds like a good investment in that respect and also the whole curbing the urge to strangle and rape a child, thing. I wonder if there will be a "kidbot refuge" somewhere in a future sewer city. How sentient should the things be? Oh and Catering to the psychotic pedophile is 70% of the money flow wouldn't you think? And then there is the fact that pedophilia is psychotic to begin with. So they deserve special dolls, like the blind need dogs and whatnot.

 

[bilby]

A child goes missing every forty seconds.

You would think his mum would try harder to keep an eye on him for a full minute.

 

[another1]

Yeah I know right? Are there just too many damn kids running around? The stranger-danger numbers Google made up were like 125. So 125 kids are locked in a room right now, wishing they were lifeless dolls. I think the number is way higher than that but whatever. There are 125,000 being bid on within the deep web, according to a hundred sources, so who knows when it comes to Google numbers. How many dolls do you think they would bid on? More or less? I bet they would go with the doll/human package, because kids grow up and must be disposed of. Dolls stay the same age. People are wonderful.