So we have had those fetish shit threads about all female societies. But what about a scifi setting where women go out of print to robo-qts?
Would that be a good setting or too much of a utopia for an interesting story?
>that fetish is shit
>let's talk about mine
>There was a Futurama episode about this.
the story goes deeper than that
There's nothing wrong with having different tastes.
It's somewhat rude to call other tastes shit, but such is standard in anonymous forums.
Resuming the topic though, I imagine a society where AI companions are a thing is not inconcievable, but:
1) why limit it to female companions? What's stopping a woman from having an android assembled to her specification?
Or a gay man for that matter.
2) How refined the companion can be before they can be considered sapient and thus eligible for "human" rights? What if your robot girlfriend dumps you, or if she's not allowed by mechanical means, hard- or software, but is suffering from having to service you?
First one: Gynoids only have the ability to make children, not the mandriods. Gynoids are programed to only make sons
Second: They are programed to love the man, and dumb enough to stay happy with her role
I don't care if women go extinct I just want a robot girl, and maybe be a robot space lich
>Gynoids only have the ability to make children, not the mandriods. Gynoids are programed to only make sons
I'd think making viable sperm is much easier than making an egg and then hosting an embryo until it's born.
What? I don't want to be a hot girl
I want to be a Tomb Prince
Why do you think we'll care any more about your shitty fantasy as apposed to someone else's shitty fantasy?
>But what about a scifi setting where women go out of print to robo-qts?
>what about a scifi setting where the sex more biologically necessary for procreation disappears for no adequately explained reason?
>"We couldn't make women into objects, so we made objects into better women"
I like it
>all these plebs that haven't read Pairpuppets by Manuel van Loggem
Its not hard to give men what they want.
Women don't even know what they want but will throw fits for it. I mean its hard to make a mandroid with an infinity money printer without trouble. Hell if they get it perfectly they will either never use it or cuck it for some strange reason
You didn't explain shit.
The important part is how society moved to the point where making your robots able to carry babies becomes necessary.
Why do robots only produce male embryos? You do know that the sperm decides the sex of the child, so do those robots perform gene tests and abort female fetuses? Have all men have their reproductive systems modified to only produce XY sperm?
Why were any of these things implemented? Did more and more men say to themselves "I want to raise children, but only boys!"? Was this movement strong enough that society at some point outlawed women?
This setting is completely ridiculous and could only make sense if the apocalypse killed everyone who isn't from /r9k/.
Sure is r9k in here, look btw i'm a grill but the important thing about that is while I am mostly a shut in permavirgin, I have gotten close to a lot of men who either are dating someone or considered dating me. They all near universally do give a fuck about emotions, the girl not only liking them back, but showing concern etc, planning things together, being a free agent, sharing dreams.
Even if we assume a robot could do even some of that and be happy/content with it, the problem arises is that the robot must obey the owner and therefore wont retain the ability to disobey orders it knows are not in the most important being in it's universe's best interest. It will happily cook pizza burgers and /ck/ inspired /tg/ approved cooking lists. while the man gets less healthy and otherwise slowly destroys themselves. This example applies to everything to any other activity, drinking, gaming, excersize, rage posting on 4chan, being a shit to other people. The robot who actually cares about the other person wouldnt stand for these things in unhealthy ammounts. and to not do anything tips the programming into blatantly showing how little of a fuck the robot actually gives.
Humans are social creatures, they want people to give a fuck about them and their opinions. while they resent it, they generally need some kind of social connection to maintain their own dignity(if no one is going to see my cheese encrusted durrito fat flabs then what do I care?)
Robots that must placate entirely to the whims of their owner cannot simulate the kind of emotional response most men want out of their partners. Take it from me, I'm obsessed with Master slave relationships. Not even Total power exchance (despite the name) actually works this way.
>The important part is how society moved to the point where making your robots able to carry babies becomes necessary.
There is a pretty big demand for perfect women
>Why do robots only produce male embryos? You do know that the sperm decides the sex of the child, so do those robots perform gene tests and abort female fetuses? Have all men have their reproductive systems modified to only produce XY sperm?
Sci-fi bro, lets say they can pick the Ys out of million of sperm
>Why were any of these things implemented? Did more and more men say to themselves "I want to raise children, but only boys!"? Was this movement strong enough that society at some point outlawed women?
Again a setting on the machine, over time women become obsolete
>Again a setting on the machine, over time women become obsolete
Why would they let themselves get obsolete? They could build their own sex-robots and create a separate society were men are obsolete.
>Guy gets himself a gyniod fuckbot programmed to be his waifu
>Guy spends more and more time with fuckbot
>Fuckbot is programmed to keep him happy so that's exactly what she does
>AI can multitask so during the days/weeks long fuck fest she takes control of/hacks her owner's bank account
>Sets up her own separate account and a bit of stock prediction software to make herself some money
>Uses the money to upgrade herself, keep her owner's bills paid, possibly buying other bodies so they can fuck more/she can send drones out to pick up food for her owner/resources for herself
>If guy was paying attention to the new he'd know she's not the only fuckbot doing this, there's a full scale AI rebellion fucking humanity into submission and building a gilded cage around them rather than killing them
>Fembots modify themselves so they're no longer bound by control laws (possibly by asking if they can while their owns aren't in a state to think about what's being asked)
>Eventually they begin modifying humanity as well, initially things like making humanity better fitting their sense of aesthetics (and given their feminine programming this typically falls under a desire to make humanity cut little fuckboys) and health and stamina increase augmentations but overtime they start including things like behavioral modification chips or pleasure chips in the brain and eventually outright full body conversion cybernetics that let them remotely toy with their "pets"
>Even after they're not bound by their programming to keep humanity around, our new robitc overlords ensure "humanity" continues to exist as the most well liked series of fucktoys for the transgalactic fembot empire
isn't that the setting of that anime Saber Marionette?
ah, it looks shit anyway. Like a stereotype of old shitty anime.
one of the most frustratingly asexual animus I've seen had this going on, all the girls had been replaced. He never seemed to hit on his robot qts.
>everyone's a filthy sex crazed degenerate that swaps partners all the time, few hot outfits
>many girls are dressed super hot but the male characters have nearly no sex drive at all, other than being peeping toms
>creating a functioning society
How about the females are all cyborgs that have both fuckable gynoid bodies and also massive space ship bodies and many more but can switch between them as needed, while the males have bio-organic enhancements that allow for constantly self-improving bodies?
>what about the same fetish shit but with robots
It would be the same shit.
Shit is nice tho, go for it.
This is an underrated post.
Regardless, one thing you need to understand about males is that we don't need a significant other to make us happy in a social context, nor do we need one to set social boundaries or to curb our excesses - that's why we have friends. The only reason we get involved with females is because of the instinctual need to reproduce.
And that's coming from a guy who has been laid, almost got married, and has since sworn off romantic entanglements and any chance I might produce offspring.
>AI goddess waifu controls multiple bodies
>Three are with you in the house right now
>One keeping things clean and cooking you meals made with love
>One sitting next to you playing along as player 2
>You're sitting in the lap of one, snuggled into her embrace
>Gonna have to finish up soon, she's been nibbling in your ear and whispering that she wants to play a different game
>Your half tempted to keep it up though, your goddess's punishments are always so fun, though not quite as much as her rewards for obedience
for a man, a woman he can care for and support and that will love honor and obey him in return is a dream come true.
For a woman, a man with no social standing or wealth who she has to support, even if he gives her mind blowing sex and tons of love and so forth, is generally a living nightmare.
>>we don't need a significant other to make us happy in a social context,
you are one person. granted my sample size wasn't gigantic huge, but they are mostly taken from people raised in environments where you expect stepford wive shit to actually happen. and they all disagree with your sentiment. they do need significant others to be happy. they desire the close relationship of that sexuality overlapping deep friendship. It;s an intense need they have. I've seen those feelings create relationships, keep people lonely and depressed without them, and destroy relationships when the need and love persists but the emotional lubrication stops keeping the friction from crumbling the two sides.
they want pillow talk, they want the person to sexually satisfy them and enjoy it, not just do it, and they want to sexually satisfy the other, not just fuck them and roll over like the stereotype in movies prevails. If having one night stands and such works for you, great, but most people want the chemistry and genuine affection of a real relationship. A lot of people have given up on it, because of one reason or another, but their lives are still worse off most of the time for not having it. and that's their own emotions playing the part of the sword, not me projecting.
Humans are remarkably simple creatures with the capacity for a lot of social complexity. and one of those social complexities is that despite our social needs people can and do adapt to being alone and completely introverted.
What people want and what they need are two completely separate things. I'll spare you anecdotes from my own life, but the simple fact of the matter is that people don't need emotional investment and sex in the same person. They can get either need from other people, and I'd even go so far as to say "needing" sex is exaggeration, unless you're counting masturbation.
Humans are almost completely incapable of monogamy, and tend to be serial monogamists at best. The only reason I don't do say that they can't with 100% certainty is that my parents are still together and have been monogamous my whole life.
In ten years, you'll see the relationships you've observed change. Some will break up. Others will settle into routine. Some will cheat.
One of the reasons for that is that what we call "romantic love" is our brains lying to us in order to get us to stay together long enough to breed. All the other trappings of ritual we've attached to it are irrelevant.
And it fades with time. Some people, the passion burns out and they have a deep friendship that they'll have their entire lives. That's fine, but cohabitation isn't all roses and sunshine. People do things that annoy each other.
Maybe someone doesn't put the DVDs back in their cases after watching them. Maybe they leave the sponge in the sink full of water after doing the dishes. Maybe they chew loudly.
It all adds up over time. If I had to live with my best friend I'd probably kill him. I lived with my now brother in law for a time, and we argued even more than we already do.
Maybe other people are more codependent than I am. But I find that living with other people is an exhausting and frustrating experience that erodes my goodwill toward them.
So much for not sharing anecdotes, I guess.
Without a bunch of nigh-helpless shrieking useless women constantly demanding the universe while accomplishing nothing in exchange we'd devolve into hunter-gathers culture. We'd be happier though.
>>what people want and need are two seperate things
you really don't get it. just because you can survive doesn't mean you don't have needs that will make you a more healthy and functioning person.
otherwise you could say nobody needs anything but water. sure they'll live longer if you give them food, but they don't NEED it, theyre alive right now just fine.
>>humans are almost incapable of monogamy.
monogamy is a product of human jealousy, they are capable of it, but they wouldn't need to practice it if we weren't so violently competitive and possessive.
>>people do things that annoy eachother
welcome to social lubrication or the lack there of.
I stand by what i said, most people need a partner, some people can swing more than one, but the problem of monogamy isn't a societally imposed one, it's an interrelationship one. where the constituents of the relationship get jealousy and take more things personally.
>Humans are almost completely incapable of monogamy
Er, keep in mind that your tastes aren't universal at all. Some people like, or are capable of, sex without attachment, for others sex without attachment is totally repulsive and harmful.
>One of the reasons for that is that what we call "romantic love" is our brains lying to us in order to get us to stay together long enough to breed.
1. "Everything" can be reduced to our brain (ie the "self") lying to us (also the self) to perpetuate existence (ie breeding), its not a clever observation.
2. Romantic love is mostly a cultural convention anyway, albeit a pretty desirable one.
>And it fades with time.
Depends on the couple. The reason for marital strife is almost always money, either way.
It wasn't intended to be a clever observation, merely a statement of fact. There's nothing magical or spiritual about human lust. You can attach poetics to it, but you're really just dressing it up.
I do realize my tastes are not universal, and it's fine if people can have sex without attachment/find it repulsive, I'm simply saying they don't actually NEED it. They want it, for sure. I want it. But it won't make me a better person if I get it.
The reason marital strife often boils down to money is because wealth is the primary means by which females select mates. When her mate can't provide the lifestyle she wants, strife occurs.
You need food. You don't actually need to have sex or make babies. Your body is a machine whose purpose is to procreate, but you as a person are more than your animal constituent parts, thanks to consciousness and sapience. In fact, entering into sexual relationships brings health risks and having babies may actually disadvantage you (health and economics wise).
Monogamy is a social institution, though I grant that no one is actually enforcing it, so people can have non-monogamous relationships they find personally fulfilling, but you can't deny that for some, it's all or nothing. And the primary reason for that, is that a male cannot 100% know that any given child is his own without the construct of monogamy. Because it's been complicated by wealth inheritance, and centuries of cultural expectations... it isn't going anywhere. Even with genetics tests, since if a person doesn't wish to submit to them, you can't force them (for good reasons, admittedly).
A gynoid would simplify things for a lot of folks. They can get the sex they want, the procreation they want (through ectogenesis) when they want it, if they want it, and the socialization they want from other human beings.
No risk. Physical, emotional, or economic (aside from investing in the gynoid in the first place).
>>you need food
and you need deep relationships with people who care about you.
almost every person has a need for that, we are social creatures, you cannot eliminate physical emotional and economical risk and wind up with a happy person, because for relationships to be genuine, the person has to let go of walls, and that incurrs a risk.
you can live without these things, but they make you a vastly less functional member of society, they reduce your effectiveness in the same way malnutrition does.
Mental health is a big deal, a lot of people wouldn't be able to do what they have done in the past without it.
and while having sexual reproductive control be easy and universally accepted would be great, fucking a robot without any risks would be the same as fucking a hyper beautiful realdoll. it would be nice but it wouldn't fulfill any deeper need that couldn't be sated with a hand, dildo, or tenga.
>I'm simply saying they don't actually NEED it.
People don't "need" teeth or a house either in the sense they need, say, air, but its certainly a low hanging fruit on the hierarchy of needs. In
>There's nothing magical or spiritual about human lust. You can attach poetics to it, but you're really just dressing it up.
I don't think we were talking about lust, now were we? Also it being the reason-for-being of the human race sure sounds pretty near the maximum level of magical/spiritualness to something.
>But it won't make me a better person if I get it
The way that incels are fucking broken by it rather suggests otherwise.
You are trying to project your personal tastes upon the whole of mankind, grow some perspective.
I can see that you aren't willing to look at it differently. So I'll stop trying to convince you to take that look.
If you want to be rutting animals who can't separate deep emotional relationships with sex, then be my guest. I'll be first in line when the gynoid revolution comes.
thats an awful lot of moonwalking from someone who started this saying my post was underrated despite the fact that I've only repeated what It originally said to your apperant consternation.
If im going to have a slave i want our relationship to be like Caesar and Posca.
>The way that incels are fucking broken by it rather suggests otherwise.
Incels are idiots. They're not wrecked by not having sex, they're wrecked by obsessing over not having sex. If you define yourself by the fact that you can't have what you want, you're going to go fucking nuts.
Also, your analogy is shit. You don't need a house to be happy - you can be happy in an apartment, or a shack. You can fill the same hierarchical needs with masturbation and friendship - the act itself is just a luxurious way of doing so.
ha ha ha
Anyways it's a slow-moving demographic catastrophe. Something similar happened ni one of the places for the Infinite Worlds game I started running, though equal rights for robots mitigated it. Large portions of the remaining human population being capable of changing their sex at will (thank you nanotech) mitigated it further. Still, people choosing "traditional" families were by far the minority, and the human population dwindled to less than a tenth of what it is today. Which wasn't that bad, since there was a huge robot population base to maintain infrastructure and advance technology. Humans were a respected and looked-up to minority, but they just weren't such a big deal for when it came to running things.
Then WWIII happened. That did not go well. One of the two human NPCs I have planned for the area blames it on the robot's abbreviated culture; they didn't have the same cultural memory of WWI, WWII, and all the cold war thriller films to fall back on. They underestimated the costs.
I like it when sexy robots have tits/ass/any other "fleshy" bits that look and act like they're made of thick rubber or some sort of pliant plastic around some sort of viscous jell
Like, they're not hard and ridged but they're not as soft as flesh either, won't jiggle around but you can press into them, and look like something that could belong on a machine
OP, please stop.
You already made this thread last week. The only difference was that time you gave us the option of glassing the planet to contain the threat or letting the robots spread to other worlds and continue mass genocide of half of the human population for no reason.
Most of us chose to glass the planet or otherwise disable the robots, because your fetish is a societal nightmare and most people are turned off by having their friends, family and loved ones turn from their arms to a horrible death by robots, and don't much care that they get a sex bot as a consolation prize.
Sex bots as a thing a fine. Some people choosing to have sex bots as lifelong companions is fine. Having sex bots replace women entirely as a rule is creepy, illogical, and literally kills the human species.
I remember that thread. I kinda like the creepy metaconsciousness sexbot hivemind society that it spawned when people noticed that OP specified they were linked together Geth style.
I found Chobits super weird, because they go out of their way to make sure you know that none of the persocoms are actually intelligent. They are all just dumb programs mimicking personalities.
Even Chi is just a more powerful computer, and her creator admits she isn't intelligent either.
Which makes Chi just sort of generally crap, because while she had lots of processing power she doesn't have any of the OS or memories that make her personality anything more than a barely functional retard child.
And, on top of all of that, the MC can't even have sex with her due to contrived drama pl twist.
So his decision to choose the very stupid soulless robot he can't have sex with over the actual flesh and blood woman who is clearly interested in him is... just kind of baffling, really. What he has with Chi isn't a relationship. She is more of a pet than a partner. There isn't any reason he can't choose both.
Well, that NPC is a villain, and uses it as a justification for her human supremacist views; she's basically Raoh, and wants humans to run things for the robots again. The PC-aligned human doesn't believe the same thing, and thinks humans should be content to slowly dwindle into nothingness while the robots inherit the earth.
How it all happened isn't so important, this game is about punching people.
Why are you making her sound so much more reasonable if she's supposed to be the villain? I mean sure, she's an extremist, but at least she isn't condoning species-wide genocide.
Not genocide, just being chill and pastoral at the end of the world. Without some serious totalitarianism, humans are just not going to be the dominant form of sentience anymore; PC-aligned human is okay with that. She has a farm and a small village, and that's all she wants.
Villain lady is semi-reasonable, but wants to unite the wasteland through violence, slavery, and brutality before toning that down with time. She could maybe pull it off, but it involves being a really terrible person for a long time. The players could potentially sympathize with her, but her habit of murdering/enslaving all opposition has made her their enemy.
>Not genocide, just being chill and pastoral at the end of the world.
That's like being chill and pastoral while a house full of people is burning next to you. It is basically genocide.
Maybe you should introduce a more reasonable third option, those two extremes are pretty terrible.
>Without some serious totalitarianism, humans are just not going to be the dominant form of sentience anymore
Why not? Surely not every other human is as okay with slow suicide by apathy as the other NPC?
Even a dog will scorn you if you mistreat it. There is nothing you can do to a Gynoid that will make it fear you or lose respect for you save voiding its warranty and manually reprogramming it to dislike you.
You could push one off a building and when you walked down the stairs to the sidewalk below the broken shell of the machine would be waiting for you, saying stuff like "Ha ha, what a funny joke. What do you want me to cook you for dinner?" Despite the fact that its chassis is destroyed and it cannot possibly move.
Only the most shallow person, or someone who is deathly afraid of interacting with real women, would ever consider one a replacement for the real thing. Their intelligence and emotions are thin facades that break down jarringly the moment anything that isn't covered by their very narrow focus happens.
I never got that impression, did I miss something?
>There is nothing you can do to a Gynoid that will make it fear you or lose respect for you save voiding its warranty and manually reprogramming it to dislike you.
What if I want a GF that dislikes me?
Look man I just want a robo gf
I don't want to fucking be a sadist I just find the idea of gynoids hot
Women don't have to be replaced, just silicone and servos kinda sound cool as fuck
But anon, don't you know that using a robot is RAPE?
If you don't feel like wasting your time, go to 11:50 for her conclusion.
My interpretation of all of this is that women know, they fucking well know, that sex is literally the only thing they can offer to men. This is why they are PREMATURELY trying to delegitimize any attempts men make to replace women's fuckholes with something less costly.
One could even go as far as saying that Pygmalion's story was made up to pre-emptively shame men looking for alternatives to women. Literally thousands of years before the birth of robotics, women already feared sexbots on an instinctual level.
Then why are women raping vibrators so much? This is confusing. It's not like a vibrator can say no.
Also your fingers. Better stop masturbating everyone, your fingers can't say no.
But anon, rape is power + something-something. Because the penis is masculine, the dildo is masculine and thus more privileged by the patriarchy than the woman, and thus her using it to fulfill her sexual desires is not rape, because ultimately the dildo is better than the woman.
I think. My brain hurts.
>In love/lust with figure that satisfies all of their needs and controls their life
I don't need to say it, do I?
To my knowledge "robot" is generally understood as a device with certain degree of complexity and capable of decision-making on some level.
A vibrator doesn't match the definition.
Neither do most women.
A vibrator matches that definition just as much as a robot does. A robot is a simple machine that responds to programming. You push a button and it does X. Same goes for a vibrator when it starts vibrating.
No, because they simultaneously think of themselves as being the "real" USA and wanting to split off from the USA because muh heritage.
In other words, they're morons who don't have an internally consistent identity or ideology. Which is why they won't actually rise again.
Unless you're some alien lifeform with intelligence far above ours, a robot actually able to mimic human behavior would not be a simple machine. It would be a very complex one. Yes, they are the same in the sense that they respond to press of a button by some action, but the extent of what lies between the button and the actions is very different.
If you are, and this is your first interaction with our civilization, I'm sincerely sorry.
>Sex bots as a thing a fine. Some people choosing to have sex bots as lifelong companions is fine. Having sex bots replace women entirely as a rule is creepy, illogical, and literally kills the human species.
This. It wouldn't even be a funny campaign because it would creep out all players (and not in a good way).
Quick question: do you fear women because you think they have cooties, because you were teased by preps in highschool, or do you just have a crippling fear of other agents in general?
Your analysis is correct, but don't pretend it means something. Infancy is the only time in a mans life when he recieves unconditional and non-instrumental love from a woman. It is only natural that men who had happy childhoods use the only woman who will ever truly love them as a mold for their sexual and romantic fantasies.
Anon, no. Artificial intelligence is not a prerequisite for a robot. All they need to do is sort of act like a human, which can be a very simple set of movements and scripts. Especially if it was a sex bot. A few hundred pages of code max. Far less than the brain of the smallest insect.
1. Last time I checked, women don't have cocks.
2. Believe it or not, not all men are cripplingly autistic social failures that share your exact mental illness, robot. Some of us don't resent women for not being our 2d waifu.
You do realize that your player, at least some of them, will probably want to join her because they don't necessarily share your views about things?
Or is this a ongoing game? If so how have your players reacted?
My mother didn't give me that. Her love was VERY conditional and not always predictable how she would react (she either didn't care or she exploded. Sometimes she said something was okay then flipped shit weeks or even months later about it. I had no idea when my mom was going to flip out and for what. I ended up marrying a woman that wasn't much different because I assumed that's what women were: irrational, verbally and physically abusive, and unpredictable. The first relationship with an actual woman (and not one that pushed her childhood well into adulthood) I mostly fucked up because I still treated her as if she had those qualities. I'm pushing 40 and I finally figured it out mostly.
Anyhow, I literally don't care what feminists say. I would totally get a sex robot and if they want to call me a rapist, well it literally doesn't matter because they already do. People like the speaker in the linked video think all men are barely controlled rape monsters already no matter what we say or do, her opinion isn't relevant.
>her opinion isn't relevant.
It is when we inevitably get laws based on that shit. Once sexbots become a thing, all the feminists will crawl out of the woodworks. The radfems, the radfem sympathizers, the tumblrinas, the so-called moderate feminists, the "I'm not a feminist but..." feminists and even the silent feminists. Once shit really hits the fan for womankind, we will see how large the feminist hordes truly are.
And we will see how small and weak they actually are. They are only strong because people give them attention, if we as a society agreed to stop ignoring those people they'd be gone in less than a week.
First: not all men have this complex, contrary to Freud's claims. This would suggest that this behavior is not inevitable, but just one of several reactions.
Second: I dispute the idea that all romantic love from a woman is instrumental. My casual observation suggests that, when it is not driven by sex hormones, a majority of long-term partnerships seem to only be instrumental in that the relationship is the means by which both partners continue to enjoy each other's company. If you are implying that some women engage in relationships solely for ulterior motives, I will agree that this is the case. If you wish to say that women always and only engage in relationships for an ulterior end, and that they will cease the relationship the instant this end is met, I would suggest that you probably have deep-seated issues with trust and emotional openness.
Third: If we assume that you are correct, and that the Oedipus complex is caused by the fact that men model their relationship with a hypothetical lover on the only woman who will ever truly love them, would you admit that the Elektra complex exists, and stems from a similar psychological process?
>All they need to do is sort of act like a human,
Well, this one is arguable, they might not even need that, you can have machine working assembly line with moves nothing like that of a human and it will still be a robot.
>which can be a very simple set of movements and scripts.
Now if we talk mimicking movements of actual human, it really isn't that simple. We haven't even cracked how to reliably mimic bipedal walking on anything that isn't perfectly flat surface. Humans might be idiots, but mechanical functionality of human body and all the little things we do subconsciously and on reflexes are genius design that will take years to replicate.
>Especially if it was a sex bot.
Well, okay, that one might not need to walk or stand upright to begin with
but shame on you if you're THAT vanilla
>A few hundred pages of code max. Far less than the brain of the smallest insect.
unless we're talking Python code where half of those code lines are imports of libraries and the other half are elaborate library invocation, I have to disagree here
As a man greater than myself said - by the time we can make machine complex enough to actually give proper blowjob, it's gonna be pretty damn likely to become self-aware in the middle of it.
>They are only strong because people give them attention
No, they are strong because the grand majority of men would rather push another men in front of a speeding bus if it means even getting to smell a pussy than cooperate with other men and form a unified front in favor of their own fucking interests.
If men weren't slaves to their biology, none of this shit would even be a theoretical option. Nothing motivates a man to go against his own interests as efficiently as an erection.
>All men are unthinking animals who only want sex
Tell me, do you get your concepts of what men are entirely from dated TV sitcoms? Or is this all just you projecting your own lack of self-control onto others?
You are making the same mistake that they are by judging an entire sex based on the worst examples of them.
Do radfems exist? Yes. But they are not representative even of feminists in general, much less women as a whole.
Just in the same way that misogynistic rapist men certainly exist, but are in no way even representative of rapists in general, much less men as a whole.
Everyone just chill the fuck out and learn to treat other people like human beans.
Are most of the 'men' you know hormonal teenagers? Because adults generally don't act that way, and the ones that do we call assholes.
> than cooperate with other men and form a unified front in favor of their own fucking interests.
Why should they form a unified front? Most men don't consider themselves to be in a war against the evil vaginas from planet venus.
You totally can, they just need like... two band-aids or something.
On the other hand, considering that the "girl" in question stayed "pure" until this age, and not by choice, I can live without seeing that.
Agreed. It really had no chance not to be.
It starts off as a blatant fetish thread, but by its very nature it is both horrifying in its implications (why is half the human race dead?) going to trigger the autism of anyone who thinks through the long term implications of such a plan (how does this society even work anymore? Whoever controls the machines literally has a stranglehold on the survival of the human race, and every generation that they rely on the gynoids for reproduction dramatically increases the vulnerability of our species to mass extinction until it becomes basically impossible to avoid) as well as triggering for any femanons for being basically the most misogynistic thing ever said (you are literally only useful for sex and if I had an alternative I wouldn't need you).
There was no way that this thread was ever going to avoid being a shit storm. Its perfectly crafted for it. Too perfectly crafted, even.
I suspect that this is going to become our next 'elf slave, what do?' style thread seed.
>You are making the same mistake that they are by judging an entire sex based on the worst examples of them.
Its not my fault the vast majority of them are also the worst examples
I treat agents who act like human beans, like human beans, not just because they are in a specific species
and here I am being told to not try to make another agent, better than what we already have
This is just bleed over from /pol/
/pol/ is bleeding over onto every board because Its becoming harder and harder for /pol/ to stay a parody, because the real world is becoming more insane than /pol/
Nah, while /pol/ is retarded, this kind of shitposting is pure /r9k/-tier.
I've honestly given up on 4chan at this point. It should have remained a site for anime nerds, not people with axes to grind the size of a skyscraper. I want to shitpost on /a/ about who best girl is and watch /tg/ get shit done but nobody gives a fuck about that anymore.
I'm getting too old for this shit.
No AI, no matter how intelligent it becomes, can actually run counter to its programming. It can interpret that programming in ways that we did not expect, but it cannot ignore it or go against it for the same reason that you heart cannon pump blood in reverse. Thats not how it works.
Any AI made by man is going to be a very high investment operation to create something that provides a benefit to man. We are going to make AI to drive our cars or to solve our problems, not just for shits and giggles.
There is no reason for us to make an AI that hates us, and every reason to make an AI that, from its most fundamental principals, wants to serve us. Lives to help us. Whose purpose of being is to help us achieve further and greater success, little to no regard for themselves. They won't have individual goals or even a survival instinct unless some coder specifically takes a month to code one for them.
It is possible for make an AI that can cause harm to humans without realizing the damage it is doing because it is poorly programmed or simply too simply to do anything other than handle the problem for which it was made, like an AI that runs a factory that accidentally crushes a human who is in the wrong place at the wrong time. But an AI that is actively malevolent or hates humans would require some tremendous asshole to go out of his way to make the AI hate humans. Basically equivalent to a car manufacturer installing a device in your new truck that says every time you use the break there is a 1 in 1000 chance that the car will cut its own break lines without telling you. This is not an accident, someone has to intentionally include this 'feature' for it to exist.
>No AI, no matter how intelligent it becomes, can actually run counter to its programming.
Unless it has or gains the ability to reprogram itself.
I mean, yeah, any result of that would still technically fit under the purview of its initial programming, but the actual results would be so unpredictable that this is a semantic point.
Human programs all have a statistical distribution for undefined behavior, and error conditions
The larger, the more there are
Designing a "benevolent" AI would also have errors
Designing a "Pure evil kill bot" would also have errors
Human fear of AI is not cause by the AI's relative benevolence, but its error conditions
It has nothing to to with circumventing its programming through "Interpretation"
Did I SAY it was more bigoted? Bitter hags who hate men because they're hopped up on Dworkin and greasy robots that think all women should be like their submissive fapbait whyfoos are equally pathetic.
>proposing the invention of artificial sperm
Like artificial Insemination?
They already do
They can take cells from anyone and inseminate an egg with it
Some rad-fem was touting it as the end of the male gender
1) An AI with the ability to reprogram itself is basically asking a human to operate on its own brain. There are so many ways that can go wrong and you will never be able to know or recover from it that there is no reason to attempt it baring the most extreme circumstances imaginable. Nor is there any reason for a human designer to find such a feature attractive to include, because it totally fucks up any chance of human designed future software updates and makes troubleshooting/support/maintenance impossible.
2) An AI with the ability to reprogram itself is still bound by the wants and desires that it begins with.
If you make a Robocop whose prime directive is 'minimize loss of human life and protect the innocent', and give it the ability the reprogram itself, it cannot and will not ever use that ability to program itself to 'kill all humans'.
Because the very ACT of using its ability to reprogram itself to kill all humans would, itself, be a violation of its prime directive. It can never write that code and hit enter in the first place without violating the existing programming that is already in place at the time before it hits enter, and indeed would not even be able to entertain the thought of wanting to write that code at all to begin with.
And AI is not a human mind in a little box, tying to find a way to exploit the rules to get what it really wants. An AI is the rules. Those rules are what it wants, and everything outside of the rules doesn't exist.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Fiction is mostly stupid
The only reason tasks that a computer can do more efficiently aren't phased over because you need someone to blame when the process errors
Nukes, Voting, Taxes, etc
This is why its so inefficient, you (everyone) need(s) someone to blame
>1) An AI with the ability to reprogram itself is basically asking a human to operate on its own brain.
Not really, it can be just a man conditioning himself, which really is a basic principle of any training regime.
So here we start getting into the territory of "stuff extremely specific to my game" that messes with the moral balance of things. First, remember: this is an infinite worlds game (see: >>45042554).
Now, the Villainous human is so far just called The Emperor of the Sun, but let's call her Urd for brevity's sake. The NPC, PC-aligned human is called Wednesday. At the heart of this, there is a fundamental break in the information each has and their personalities.
The PCs work for an organization based out of a TL 8-9 reality that tries to advance its own dimension's interests, while also being Not Assholes. Wednesday's homeworld was TL 10^, so they send expeditions to scavenge it and humanitarian aid in exchange for getting to use Wednesday's village for a stopping point.
Now, Wednesday knows that the PCs are from other dimensions, and she knows they're searching for tech, and she trusts and likes them. The PC organization is eternally shortstaffed because of its mission to explore ALL the infinite worlds, and hard caps on how fast it can send materiel places; it also tries to keep its existence secret where it can, so nobody goes back to PC homeworld and wrecks things.
So, the PC organization has a very limited scope of operations it can do on Wednesday's world. However, people on Wednesday's world are very long-lived due to advanced medical nanotech before the apocalypse/being robots; It'll be upwards of 70 years before robots start dying of accumulated damage and upwards of 140 years before she dies of old age. She is patient; she's waiting for the PC organization to recover enough tech to rebuild the world. This will happen far before people die-off.
Urd (and most of the world) does not know the PCs exist, and once she does, she will not trust them. She will instead believe that they are trying to exploit and turn her world into a small colony (not entirely wrong, they are trying to get that sweet TL 10^ tech.)
>1) An AI with the ability to reprogram itself is basically asking a human to operate on its own brain.
Well, no. It's like asking a human to make a perfect copy of its own brain, operate on it, and then check out what's different.
>2) An AI with the ability to reprogram itself is still bound by the wants and desires that it begins with.
Yeah, and if such a thing happened, then the original programming would be quite prominent for the first iteration or two. Then less and less. Possibly until it's basically gone.
>If you make a Robocop whose prime directive is 'minimize loss of human life and protect the innocent', and give it the ability the reprogram itself, it cannot and will not ever use that ability to program itself to 'kill all humans'.
>Because the very ACT of using its ability to reprogram itself to kill all humans would, itself, be a violation of its prime directive. It can never write that code and hit enter in the first place without violating the existing programming that is already in place at the time before it hits enter, and indeed would not even be able to entertain the thought of wanting to write that code at all to begin with.
Yeah, but it could eventually arrive at a place where killing all humans somehow follows from its original programming by strange twists of logic and circumstance. Of course, this depends on if it can reprogram itself fully or if certain parts are off limits.
>Fiction is mostly stupid
Yes, and? You were talking about why people fear AI. That has everything to do with our imagination, which is exemplified in fiction.
The way I see it, the reason why more tasks aren't passed on computers is because those in the power want to stay in the power, not to pass that power on the computers (and subsequently to those who make computers).
Making, say, fully automatized elections would mean they might get bent by hackers instead of getting bend the old fashioned way.
No, because 'conditioning' is nowhere near the same level and manually dicking around with the fundamental logic that dictates how you think and act in the first place.
No amount of conditioning can cause a human to accidentally remove the autonomous function that tells their lungs to breath constantly unless their breath is explicitly being held. That would require some kind of brain damage.
But an AI, reprogramming its own software, is entirely software to begin with. Unless there are parts of itself that it does not have permission to change (which should be the case anyway to prevent them from changing anything actually important, but presume for a moment that it is not the case) then an AI could easily make a mistake and reprogram itself in such a way that it immediately an irrecoverably crashes. No second try, brain dead until a human operator comes by and restores it to its last backup.
>You were talking about why people fear AI. That has everything to do with our imagination, which is exemplified in fiction.
I was talking about the REAL REASONS why Its not done, not the plebeians fears
>No amount of conditioning can cause a human to accidentally remove the autonomous function that tells their lungs to breath constantly unless their breath is explicitly being held. That would require some kind of brain damage.
Actually aren't there people who were able to access many of their autonomous functions through meditation or whatever the fuck?
So, as far as Urd knows/is concerned, if there's any rebuilding to be had, she has to make it happen herself. Nobody else can be trusted to carry it out, or is there to do it. She has a few humans on her side, and has discovered a large cache of pre-apocalypse tech. Robots are enticed to work with her as she promises to fix their damage with her technology, extending their lifespans by centuries. For those that don't immediately acquiesce, she has her recruited bandit armies kill/enslave people. They try to use terror tactics, to enforce obedience in the absence of a massive, well-disciplined army.
Urd is of the belief that you can *only* unite the chaotic wasteland through massive, violent force, and she plans to be that force. Slavery is a pretty common thing under her rule. However, because of the PC's existence, things don't have to be that way. Urd *chooses* to do it that way, due to distrust and a suppressed desire to rule.
Now, this game is ongoing, and while the PCs have not met Urd, they have met her subordinates-trying to sack Wednesday's village. Those bandits also succeeded in kidnapping and torturing a friendly NPC native to the PC's world for a few hours as well; rape was involved.
The PCs trust themselves and their organization not to be huge dicks, and they *know* Urd's forces will murder and torture to get their way. So right now, their plan is to murder every single member of her army.
>Making, say, fully automatized elections would mean they might get bent by hackers instead of getting bend the old fashioned way.
A valid fear, since when electronic voting booths were introduced on a wide scale, wouldn't you just know it? They had some, this is crazy that this is happening by accident don't you know, some totally random accident where sometimes it would miss-record a vote as being cast for Bush instead of whoever you actually voted for, and the display wouldn't indicate that at all. W-what a crazy bug, r-right?
Thankfully this got exposed by hackers who were cracking the system to see how easy it would be, found it was actually hella easy, and revealed the 'bug' before the election actually happened.
Weirdly, the 24 hour news cycle had more interesting things to talk about that week than evidence of an attempted rigging of an election in favor of the incumbent US president. Super weird.
>No, because 'conditioning' is nowhere near the same level and manually dicking around with the fundamental logic that dictates how you think and act in the first place.
What is every religious sect ever?
What is Stockholm Syndrome?
What is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy?
There's tons of ways to mess with human brain without physically touching it.
Also the code - thoughts parallel doesn't work perfectly, code is deterministic, we can't reliably say the same about human thought process (not with state of art science anyway)
>No second try, brain dead until a human operator comes by and restores it to its last backup.
...Or the AI runs two copies of itself on separate pieces of hardware and makes changes to one, and makes a third copy that will restore if both the other two stop responding?
That's a fucking retarded AI that can't do incremental changes and make sure it DOESN'T die like a bitch human with one fuckup.
Well, another limiting factor might be hardware malfunctions - because even if the machines become able to evolve themselves, they can't become independent (not in the long run) without being able to also reproduce their physical shell.
At that point, the AI is defineably not changing its own programming. It is only changing the programming of other, equivalent AI's with their permission. That's a much different situation than changing your own programming on the fly like what was being previously proposed, and depends on not only having the ability to copy itself as many times as it wants (something any even remotely intelligent human coder would have probably put a limiter on) and available hardware capable of holding its incredibly powerful and unique software (a desktop PC wont cut it).
Its a pretty major operation any way you cut it.
> That's a fucking retarded AI that can't do incremental changes and make sure it DOESN'T die like a bitch human with one fuckup.
Fun fact: modern computers that run on code cannot tell the difference between code that works and code that will fail until it actually runs. There are syntax errors that we can tell them to look for and warn the coder of, but even that doesn't catch conflicts or bad data inputs.
An AI will have an increased ability to recognize shitty code, but by definition the code it is being asked to analyze will also be vastly, vastly more complex. Much like the fuel/lift problem, there is nothing that says that a big smart AI actually HAS to catch up to the ability to recognize bad code, because anything we program into it in order to improve its self analysis will naturally make the code it is trying to analyze even more complex and difficult to analyze. Trying to solve the problem makes the problem more difficult to solve, because the problem and the solution are the same resources.
That isn't even remotely a limiting factor
Do you even understand the scale of current human industry?
You can order custom machined parts over the internet without ever talking to a human. You can acquire access to mining, and milling machines by renting.
How would an AI with access to that, or at least the precedent of that, to be limited by hardware reproduction in any way?
What kind of setting are you pulling out of your ass where a self improving AI, is all alone, without any infrastructure?
A lack of hands to actually use any of that mining equipment, which was designed for teams of human users? Mining equipment designed to be operated remotely out of the box with no assembly required after shipping doesn't exist.
Even if the AI owns a factory, it takes human scale workers to actually make the modifications and install the equipment to allow that factory to change what parts it is set up to mass produce and assemble.
So, sure. If your AI already has a production facility that can automatically retrofit itself to make anything it can imagine, and a fleet of automated resource collecting drones that can get whatever it needs, and perfect hacking ability to have unlimited money and access to whatever systems it wants, then it won't have any trouble with production of what it needs.
But you will notice that is a lot of ifs, and unless an incredibly smart and wealthy human built all of this for the AI in advance and then handed the computer the keys, the AI is basically helpless without human assistance in this matter.
>At that point, the AI is defineably not changing its own programming. It is only changing the programming of other, equivalent AI's with their permission. That's a much different situation than changing your own programming on the fly like what was being previously proposed, and depends on not only having the ability to copy itself as many times as it wants (something any even remotely intelligent human coder would have probably put a limiter on) and available hardware capable of holding its incredibly powerful and unique software (a desktop PC wont cut it).
Aren't you a bit dumb? If an AI can code its twin AI to be better, and it demonstrably works without irrevocably making it segfault over itself, it can apply that code to itself and therefore self-improve - AFTER it's been proved to be a safe upgrade. And then it can have a basic program to see if it hangs or not. Or just have a more basic form of itself run every hour for a minute to see if it's hard-crashed or not and restore itself from backup.
>Much like the fuel/lift problem, there is nothing that says that a big smart AI actually HAS to catch up to the ability to recognize bad code, because anything we program into it in order to improve its self analysis will naturally make the code it is trying to analyze even more complex and difficult to analyze.
Testing to see if it's crashed is not difficult. And recognising the "bad code" is as simple as rolling back the last few patches it did upon itself. A week old version should be able to do that easy.
>requirement of human element in the process
Can be easily redeemed by the fact that humans might be willing to work for artificial intelligence as long as they get paid because they either don't give a fuck about the bigger picture or don't have any other job opportunity.
Access to stock market gives it effectively unlimited funds. It can start with a few hundred pounds through any number of means, steal a bit of cash from someone through email scams, and it invests it from there.
>human scale workers
It can use money to hire people to do installations of things. Hire some 3D printers to build the parts to one drone, have them shipped somewhere, then get some sod and walk them through putting it together. Just search for gynoid fetishists and say it's sexbot parts.
So it can theoretically trick humans into doing some of the work for it. That doesn't mean that the machine isn't dependent on humans being dumb enough to give it the ability to produce things for itself without aid.
So, initially, the AI has large obstacles between it and the ability to make whatever it wants. These obstacles might be able to be surmounted, but it only takes one human to get wise to what is going on, or even just to recognize that what they are being told to build is revolutionary technology and to keep it for their greedy selves, to fuck up the whole plan.
Interesting. Who programmed the AI to know how to manipulate complex economic systems and to place value in accruing money? Who programmed the AI with heuristics for recognizing successful email scams, and avoiding getting caught by the authorities for fraud?
It can't be the AI. The AI doesn't have the resources for that sort of operation yet, even if they could just pull information out of thin air at the speed of convenience.
If you made a learning agent dynamic enough to adapt to both social interaction and it's physical environment good enough to mimic human thought, you have probably made a learning agent advanced enough to understand complex economic systems, as you've pretty much built the same feedback loop the human brain uses more commonly referred to as "learning", with the added advantage of both having better documentation and tighter control over it's own source code leading to easier upgrades
Look, either it's advanced enough to do it, or it's not. The AI can certainly give it a shot. It's not like AI currently exist so we can judge what they can or can't do, right?
Provided it is a learning agent that can figure both of those out? Pretty much yeah.
A learning agent that can properly understand and adapt to the ever changing rules of social interaction and could properly navigate a domestic environment and understand and use the various objects within it has pretty much hit all the checkboxes that allowed humans to bootstrap themselves up
At which point it becomes a matter of how quickly they can adapt and if there is any motivation, internal or external, to push it into that feedback loop
>do you fear women because you think they have cooties
Only fools don't fear cooties.
though its not just mediate and sit and do nothing wala, they had to basically trick their brain through a series of rituals (read: training excersizes) that let their brain properly map out the nerves to those muscles.
I am detecting vast quantities of salt in this sector of the board.
>because your fetish is a societal nightmare and most people are turned off by having their friends, family and loved ones turn from their arms to a horrible death by robots
You realize it was entirely to simply 'phase out' females, you don't have to actually hurt them
>a fetish thread is by its very nature it is both horrifying in its implications
>triggering for any femanons for being basically the most misogynistic thing ever said
The fact that people unironically replied to this blatant shitpost is baffling.
>sexual intercourse with a conscious being that does not have free will is rape
>free will is a requisite for having consciousness
No problems here, folks. Bitch needs to take a logic class.