Would statutory laws apply to sex robots with sentient AI?

It's not rape if it's a non living appliance and legally recognized property of or service acquired by the accused.

Besides your question will be quickly overshadowed by the question of robo-slavery anyway. Forget the three laws and the self-criticizing shenanigans they create, there's an ethical question to be asked about what right one has to call a sentient/sapient being "property" just because of who created who.

>>14747018
Ai sentience will never be accepted by law even if it could truly exist, so they remain property.

>>14748735

they said the same thing about black people

>>14748735
...and that was how the Man versus Machine was that led to the extinction of humanity started.

Frankly, if we build a more intelligent form of life than us I won't feel bad if they need to put us down for our own good
Robotron 9000 : "Let's pretend humanity died of its good death to let us live and not as raving mad monster"

>>14749974
Making machines that can want for things is a really stupid idea

>>14749991
What if we make machines that want to have sex with their owners?

>>14750118
Well, that's okay.

File: 1266472435965.jpg (135KB, 1200x728px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1200x728px

>>14749991
Things is, you might not control that.

You'll build a machine for a boring job that require problem solving ability to not be micromanaged, and the next day it will have crossed all the way to sentience and beyond human intelligence.

Think hard-coded order is a solution ? That's actually far worse that aiming for sentience. There was a SF story somewhere, a machine accidentally become sentient : problem ? It had been hard-coded to follow its military order from all side of the current war. Resulting order ? Kill everybody, you don't want ? Kill everybody, I said kill everybody, yes kill everybody. You are killing everybody right now...etc

Think the problem above was the "kill" order ? It's actually better than if he was built as a "Paperclip maximizer". At least it will stop once it killed every "human" that fit its definition.

For further intelligent reading :
http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/ai-risk

File: devils avocado.png (142KB, 555x564px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 555x564px

>>14746966
Depends on whether the laws consider the robots as civilians.

>>14752223
Or we could hire actual people to do stuff for us.
Cheap ones from Cambodia.
At least if they're pissed off and want to commit crimes, they'll be way easier to stop than an army of machines.

But scientists and engineers wouldn't want that. Who's gonna pay for their toys if we figure out that they aren't actually useful?

File: elysium-robot.png (364KB, 1294x788px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1294x788px

>>14752539
Say the guy who is profiting right now from automation beyond human skills.

You won't be paying human to do the job because you'll be too happy calling for self-driving taxi full of robotic sex-bot while a cognitive-bot is creating a gunpla for you to print, out of a cartoon that never had models before.

In that future your only job will be specifically to pretend your company still employ people, you'll be paid to dress as various workers so your company keep making benefit. (Your CEO will be a robot as well 0.0000001% of the population will own 99.99999999% of all existing wealth)

>>14748759
And women

>>14746966
You got a link for them Neo Ultra Q episodes OP

>>14757626
All of them are at bilibili, copy and paste the chinese spelling in Video Google and you'll find it. Just a warning, ep 4 doesn't work well with one of the sources for some reason and ep 6 is a tearjerker bigger than Gundam 0080.

>>14757983
Oh. I have the Chinese subs. Are those English subs?

>>14757987
nope, but Megabeast Empire did eps 1 through 5 (ep 5 being what I started the topic with).

>>14757989
Well, that's a shame. The show is top tier Twilight Zone spoopy

>>14748759
And white people. And yelllow people.

>>14746966
Robots with sentient AI would have absolutely no rights whatsoever for hundreds of years, at which point they'll get just enough rights to keep them from rebelling. So no, statutory laws would not apply to sex robots with sentient AI.

More importantly, your question makes no sense. No one would even build a sex robot with sentient AI if statutory laws were a concern, unless you're discussing the prospect of a mature sexbot statutory raping a human child who claims it was consensual, in which case the law would throw the book at the robot, rights or no.

File: 1434709190812.jpg (104KB, 1067x1500px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1067x1500px

>>14758454
You forget that many will profit from a market even if it lack proper legislation, take Airbnb, Uber or Tesla "we use the term self-driving car for what is only a more sophisticated driving-assistance system".
I'm completely expecting Google/Apple/Microsoft/Facebook/Amazon to invest in AI meant specifically... to find flaws in human laws and exploit them for profit.

Aside, there's actually laws for machine that would physically attack people/child : dangerous equipment or OSHA compliance something, simply being a machine a robot wouldn't be authorized in public area unless it safe.
But then, you are talking of a sex-bot necessarily near-indistinguishable from human. By the time we can even get close to that the robot could already be sentient.

>>14746966

Youtube doesn't have the clip, but I'm reminded of the scene in Westworld where the sex robot slaps the dude because the virus caused her to refuse his advances.