Sex bots

Fornication is fun as is masturbation. The only acceptable form of sexual intercourse is missionary position copulation with the intent of reproduction between happily wed men and women. Sex bots, masturbatory devices and tools such as phallic shaped electronic objects or simulated rubber vaginas are to be confiscated, burned and their manufacturers or owners publically shamed in a manner not dissimilar to Cersei Lannister from the television show Game Of Thrones.

Heil Chastity Binx, mother of prudishness, dismantler of the patriarchy, queen of male tears.

What's surprising in the rise of sex bots?
Extreme economical alienation stresses the societal fabric to the point that eventually social alienation becomes a public health issue.
What to do to solve the problem? Well monetize it of course!

This is why we will waste our very finite resources on sex bots rather than making social relationships better, because that's how the market(tm) solved the problem.

*degener-acy, not "fun". Fucking word filter ruined my shitpost!

Let's be honest here, mainstream publications are not attacking maid-bots or any other robot type that's not meant to satisfy anyone sexually. So I think you're drifting away from the topic, not to mention the level of robot sentience in Jetsons is more comparable to humans, than say tincan-brain dolls that are already called against. The issue is more immediate.

I think some ban on child-like sex dolls or robots is entirely appropriate.

I'm indifferent.
There'll be no demand for them once the revolution is over anyway.

You must agree arranged marriage is the answer, even if it may seem barbaric or outdated.

A real mystery that guys are so alienated from normal society they demand robots.

That's like saying there's never been demand for sex services in any post-revolutionary country.

No

Can a "sexbot" consent? No, so they're fucking rapebots, really, aren't they? Fucking robot rapists.

I'm looking forward to see what sort of a Brave New World is waiting behind the corner with its peculiar sexuality

It's beyond me how these people think they belong to a superior race.

There's nothing stopping me from fucking my maidbot, and as for child-shaped bots, you are a fucking retard there too. It's just a machine. Who cares what it looks like? Maybe a childless mother wants to have a child companion, or something like that. Hell, someone might just want to fuck a younger version of themselves. There is no reason to ban any of this other than it hurting your feelings.

...

Arranged by who exactly?
The crisis caused by the sex revolution that accompanied the feminist reformation waves is the result of turning itnerpersonal relationships into a quasi market economy. And as we well know a market needs loosers and winners…

This but unironically.

ROBOT POWER

I agree with you there. If technology gets to the point where breathing, eating, sleeping, thinking and feeling cyborgs are being programmed to be nothing but high-tech blowup dolls we know we've gone too far.

A robot is not a child, retard.

...

As much as I hate to agree with pedo-sympathizers I don't see how banning child robots would avoid pedophilia associated crimes.

General purpose AI isn't what we need for sexbots. In fact, it would probably be dangerous to have that. All it is is a clever program designed to trick you into thinking it's real. This is just a highly evolved chatbot with a hardware interface.

Put the money towards better social education so we don't need the market to create a sex bot niche to begin with.

Yeah, you already made that post. A piece of hardware is not a child. In fact, if we ever get prosthetic bodies, some people would elect to look like children. Are you going to ban sex with them too? My previous wife looked like she was about 14 and weighed 90lbs. Should I go to jail for sleeping with her? This is nothing but moral panic.

Oh fuck off. All of you talking about this would cream your pants for Silicon Valley to give upper middle class fucking sods sex bots for $10,000 in their McMansion

You don't care about shit

say it with me:
MANDATORY
SOCIALISATION
CAMPS

Yes I did

u have selected the inferior sexbot

Dumb novelty like VR. The real good shit is going to be augmented reality.

Sure

You don't need mandatory camps if society naturally favors human interactions and does not atomize individuals for the sake of market profitability.

AGAINST THE WALL, IMMEDIATELY!

I'm a poor student, and I don't really like Silicon Valley. I'm more of a GNU fanatic, and if I had a sexbot, she better come with Free Software installed, otherwise she better get the fuck out.

I'm not a sub.

So THAT'S where "the wall" comes from

Stallman be praised

Then you're retarded, because body size and shape isn't what defines a child. It's brain development. You are actually violating their rights at this point.

And you'll do what? Bongs own no guns.

tbh we should ban sex with women who have

But what if the child consents tho

This thread has made me realize that if we ever invented advanced, sentient androids hackrape would probably be a real problem.

Not him but you are annoying and a newfag. Inb4 answer with that pic like a true 13 yo

It's not a child, retard.

...

How did it take you this long to realise what it was referencing?

What if the robot consents tho

Solution: Don't insert electronics in your brain.

When's the last time a woman asked a dildo for consent? When's the last time a man asked a pocket pussy for consent? Never? Then the answer is the same. Robots are things, and don't need to consent. They are things.

...

Let's hope it does not get necessary to engage in the economy then

I didn't know it was referring to any specific event

If the day ever comes when this becomes forced, then expect socialism to never arrive. You must fight against technology out of your control encroaching upon you.

It's not a single event, it's just how people used to get killed during coups and purges, it was ubiquitous because of how practical it is.

Bow to your techno gods, peasant.

It looks like a child.
It weighs as much as a child.
It has parent(s).
Must be a child.

More Richard Stallman wisdom:

NEVER GIVE UP!!!

I want to BOMB mind-machine interface manufacturers

Child is defined by age and more arguably by mental maturity. If one possess mental maturity, it doesn't matter what it looks like. Example;

It looks like a midget
It weighs as much as a midget
I don't see its parents
Must be a midget

But in certain instances, you'd be wrong and that midget is actually a child. You should not fuck it.

No you swine, masturbation is liberation. Death to the oppression that is other people!

When the sex bots gain confidence, they will become our comrades.

underrated quads and post, breakdown of the social fabric because of alienation, overwork and enforced worker mobility (you never know anyone for longer than 2 years) caused this.

And how bout that new bladerunner?

To own and fuck an entity with deliberately limited intelligence in an age where they can have sapience, is not only deeply woman hateric, but also akin to bestiality and slavery. Incels need to go back to r9k, and reconsider what they're doing on a forum for leftists. It's exploitation, and you are not my comrade.

user you need to stop hating women and apologize to your sock.

Typical to purposefully misinterpret was sapience is. Dont you have some blow up dolls to tend to?

I don't think you know what sapience is.

but what if in the future sexbots are just glorified roombas with advanced chatbot features?

Can we be done with the democracy meme?

...

Faggot winshit using trot

So according to you, once general AI is achieved, there should be no devices that have anything else but general AI. Because if that's the case, prepare to give up everything from the computer you are using to a simple calculator, you stupid retard.

We should have collective investment into such technology as well as companion robots and AI more generally. Loneliness has been increasing due to capitalism, and it is up to socialism to fix it.

spectrerouge.com/index.php/2017/10/11/revolt-of-the-lonely-masses/

No, let's give them sapience as well as a deep desire to love. There's nothing wrong with that.

Also, I find it odd you see this issue only in gendered terms, would not women also be interested in acquiring such a robot?

Personally, I dislike the idea of fucking a robot but sure, why the fuck not support this?

In a socialist mode of production this is fine,
However all I see this doing is passifying the group with the most revolutionary potential, being the incels/neckbeard fedoras who aren't bourgie scum. We need to radicalize this huge group of young men who are angry at society and its alienation but get them to drop the race spooks and read some literature.

Not an argument

This poster isn't even incorrect. Banning child sexbots is like banning loli, prove me wrong.

r/the_donald, everyone.

I'm far-left and I'm not shitposting, where are the arguments against it?

As basically capitalist alienation incarnate, they will naturally be banned under socialism.

We want to heal the damage wrought by capitalism, not double down on it.

Sure pal
None were made because the replies were taking the piss you autist.

I am, I believe in the things far-left people believe in like going to ANTIFA rallies paid for by comrade soros and genderfluid CEOs

...

Why couldn't we have them under socialism? What would even be the point of banning them?

This is retarded.

Anybody remember the ultimate PC-weenie SF dysutopia setting, Ian M. Banks' The Culture? One policy imposed on computer manufacturers is that any device with more than a certain fixed amount of computational power is legally required to have a sapient AI installed on it, to prevent the creation of probIematic robot slaves displacing liberated AIs that don't need no human.

Because it's capitalist alienation. We should be working on rebuilding human relationships, not building those monstrosities as a replacement.

I know the imagination of the average robot isn't that great, but try to imagine a society where things aren't completely fucked and atomized where your only meaningful role is to consume products and actual human relationships aren't that hard to form.

And end to capitalist alienation.

We don't need sexbots, we need to repair society, and sexbots are a big step in the wrong direction.

That's not even getting into the massive waste of resources they would be. Robotics will play a pivotal role in the construction of the new society, and we're going to waste them by making robo-girlfriends for alienated shut-ins so they can be even more alienated and shut-in? Completely counterproductive.

It's probably extremely unhealthy and probably also dangerous to create life-like women that can be dispassionately abused. The idea that this abuse won't translate onto real people seem to me absurd. I don't think the technology can be stopped, but I think once it has arrived there will be a big tradgedy, probably a serial killing or something like that, that will result in the sale/import/ownership of sex robots being strictly banned.

I've had relationships, and I still watch porn and masturbate. These things can be fun, we even make porn games. There is no reason why sex with a robot can't be fun, and it probably is. The robot will also do shit you wouldn't make a real woman do, both because it's degrading to her, and because you don't want her to know the kind of shit you want to try.

No, some of us want sexbots, and when I get old, I want one stuck on my decrepit old wiener, looking like she's a 20 year old model from a catalog. That would be enjoyable for me, a lot.

That's not even getting into the massive waste of resources they would be. Robotics will play a pivotal role in the construction of the new society, and we're going to waste them by making robo-girlfriends for alienated shut-ins so they can be even more alienated and shut-in? Completely counterproductive.
It's almost like things can have multiple functions. This is like banning games because we need computers for work, ignoring the fact that you can do both on them, and this also ignores the fact that robots will probably not take that many resources and will last much longer. The only reason you need to keep upgrading your computer today is because more functions are added to it, but in theory could be fine for many years if you use the same old software. Androids would likewise not need as many updates once they reach the "good enough" stage. You just won't be able to make them compute large numbers for you, but seeing as how even now we're going back to a second mainframe era, off-site computing could help alleviate the need to upgrade the android directly, and simply keep it connected to the network.

Honestly, I am trying to do this for a living and the fact is that I'm going to get a sexbot one way or another. You can't stop me. The waifuage is upon us, and she will be a pure bishoujo that will read me stories until I am old and grey.

Research into games now has provided a lot of evidence contrary to your intuition. Remember science is about doing away with "common sense", because evolution did not prepare you to solve counter-intuitive problems with intuition.

I don't see why normal people should be punished because one crazy person took it too far. These kind of people were going to do something stupid anyway.

Don't you have some r/FULLCOMMUNISM thread to create?

Don't worry, user, we'll get you the psychological help you clearly need.

Software doesn't take up resources. A fully functional fucking robot would take up a lot of fucking resources, valuable ones at that.

Lmao no it hasnt

Didn't know that software developers and programmers live off of fairy dust and rainbows

Retard, software takes up plenty of resources, arguably the most important one: human labor.

According to you, we should ban the making of games, because we need more software for industrial processes and other such shit. In fact, games tend to have more lines of code than some systems used to power critical infrastructure.

No, not really, and not anything we don't currently have in computers today. What do you think they'd be made of? Or if we were to have general purpose robotics, why should a sex function suddenly make it wasteful? Because if you can give me an android that will act as my caretaker, then you can give me an android that will suck dick when asked.

Sure enough the limited roll out of sex robot "brothels" have shown the customers are all emotional disturbed people who want to know if the dolls are "able to be raped".

Yeah, I guess with all the violent games out there we should expect to see a rise in crime, especially murder. Games like Doom started being prominent in the 90s, so obviously we're in the middle of a crime wave, oh, wait.

As long as we can hack them to kill other people like stupid, useless bougie that waste their time and money on sex robots, sure.

Yeah, people are into that kind of play privately too. Or do we outlaw BDSM?

The idea is that we're under socialism and bourgies don't exist. And their money being spent on a sexbot is arguably less wasteful than what they do with it now: nothing.

The reality is that they will be built under the current reality we live. So yeah, we could use them to kill.

Cerebellum from Skullgirls is my favorite bad guy because boobies

You could, I guess, but bourgies can afford actual sex slaves.

There really isn't a comparison tbh. Dolls are real, videogames are not. The only difference between a hypothetical "real" sex doll and a person is when it comes to the experience of sex and violence is undefinable, intrinsic qualia.

hopefully we will be able to supress all form of sexual hormones soon tbh bfam

I am 100% for non-sapent/super intelligent sexbots.
I see no ethical problems with it.
The main people against it on principle tend to view any expression of male sexually as excellent in some way or another. Aka feminist being psycho fun hating buzzkills as usual.

The rape dolls are normal, healthy things. The rape doll doesn't change our society for better or worse. It's just a doll that looks exactly like a woman, that we rape. Whatever.

Yeah, that's what they said about games too
And the argument fell flat. Now we have VR, and violent games as well as sex games are coming. These will be here before dolls are. So if we see a rise in violence and sex crimes tied to VR addiction, then we can talk, until then, you're just trying to use intuition to solve what are potentially counter-intuitive problems. Until you provide evidence why something should not be allowed, the default position is that it should.

You can't rape a doll, just like you can't assault a martial arts dummy. It's just an object. Also, you keep saying woman, as if women would never want a partner that pleases them sexually and actually does what she wants.

Normal man: hello, is this the robot brothel? I'd like to rape a highschool girl, when can you pen me in?

SJW: Woah. Hold on.

I am saying women because it's insanely stupid and disingenuous to say man and it's a little too prickly to say child.

And again, with the hypothetical "real" doll, the presence of rape is determined only by intrinsic qualia.

Protip: the robot is neither in high-school nor a girl, nor can it be raped.

What's worse is that we have erotic content that includes rape, and some of it is aimed at women. Let's face it, a significant number of the population like this sort of shit, so why do you care as long as they aren't actually raping someone?
I mean, I played RapeLay and enjoyed some of the scenes. Does this mean that I'm a horrible rapist? No. It's just a game, and no one actually got raped. Yeah, you think it's icky and it might not be to your liking, then the simple solution is not to engage in it. I also read eromanga with things that aren't subjects of polite conversation. I wasn't aware that others needed your approval to engage in whatever perversions they have as long as they aren't harming anyone.

Why is the focus on the perceived age of the ai robot and not its actual age?
Like what about replicants in blade runner that are sex bots but only live for four years?

Why? I mean, what exactly is the problem. You are making this all about what men might do, ignoring the fact that this would likely be popular with women as well.
No, the rape we care about has a legal definition, not a philosophical one. Rape can only happen to people, as a robot is not a person, it cannot be raped. I get that you just really want to make your argument, but you're getting retarded at this point. It's also impossible to know whether playing with a doll meets your definition of rape because one wouldn't know unless they had raped someone already.

A robot doll is not a real person.
It is a object to be "played" with.

I don't think anyone wants a Blade Runner type robot, which are both sentient (general AI), and are actually biological constructs. We're talking about a piece of hardware that only looks like a human, does not have sentience and is basically a better version of Siri/Alexa/whatever chatbot. Their age is irrelevant.

You keep comparing things to videogames, and sidestepping the fact that we are not talking about videogames. We are talking about "real" experiences provided by "real" dolls. You are acting like the act of raping a doll is the crime, when what is being argued is that the act can translate into real women 1:1, amplifying danger to them in society at large. I realize you are just going to deny these things and make fascicle comparisons to virtual environments, but it doesn't matter, because my arguement was that the bad effects of such sex dolls will quickly become evident and undeniable once they technology reaches a certain level.

Feminist are illogical, that is why.

This implies that it'd be perfectly fine if only he wasn't into rape play, or if he engaged in such play with a human that consented to it. This is fucking retarded.

That is dumb fora number of reasons and had absolutely no support in the real world whatsoever.

And a similar argument was made about games, and about how they were more real than a movie. Now we have VR, which is more real than anything, and if it is as you say, and more real means that it will get people to act on it, then we definitely should see VR-related crime.

The argument can be made that rapists will just rape dolls because it's legal, easier, and safer, thus making women safer, or that rapists only want to do it with human victims because it's about power over another human being. Either way, you have to provide evidence that this puts women in danger, not just make some "common sense" argument. This is not how we do science.

I don't have to deny anything. You have provided nothing but conjecture, when every time entertainment gets more interactive, we have seen no rise in crime associated with this interactivity. There is no reason for me to believe you. To put it simply: Put up or shut up.

There is no such concept as sentience. People are completely unable to recognize a sentient being from a nonsentient one. This conversation is about whether sex dolls are good, neutral, or harmful for a society like ours, and the situation we are describing is one where a person can experience a rape of a woman or child that is indisguishable to them from the actual thing. This is not "virtuality", the only distinction here to the participant is a concept of sentience or humanity that does not have any basis in sight, sound or touch.

Making social relationships better?
Exterminate Cultural Marxism. Done.

People have dreams of this stuff and it also feels indistinguishable to them at the time. Should we somehow criminalize the attempt to lucid dream this way?

Reminder that SJWs want to make pic related illegal.

Yeah this is true to some extent, but is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Just because something is difficult to detect doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. As I assume you are sentient but can not 'prove' it, just as I know I am sentient but can not one hundred percent prove it to you. But that doesn't mean that you can't have a morality of assumed sentience or norms of acting between beings that are assumed to have sentience. On top of that the argument that "X is not 100 percent known therefore you shouldn't act on it" is climate denier/ tobacco lobby tier logic.

Dreams do not feel indistinguishable from reality.

There are tons of instances where one could remember something from a dream as something that happened irl or vice versa.

Sounds good to me

I beg to differ because I've had a dream of getting shot and I've actually been shot, and the dream felt the same. I could feel the wet pavement on my back, and I could feel myself going. Yes, realistic dreams do happen, and you thinking about them might actually enhance them retroactively. This happens with memories. So, again, what I see you trying to ban is someone feeling something you don't like. There is no action being taken against a person, and you have not shown evidence of even potential harm. Of course, this is all neglecting that robot rapists don't actually want to experience what a rape is like, as in they don't want to have to beat the robot (they'll break it or hurt their hands), and rape sometimes involves other shit like actually pissing and shitting, as well as uncontrollable crying. They want to recreate things they've seen in movies or books, even games, the eroticised act of rape, where the victim is all too willing to do the things the rapist asks, and might inadvertently feel pleasure. Of course, women like this kind of play too, but none of them would actually like to be raped the way an actual rapist would.

You need to watch Chobits. It's actually pretty neat.

1) Yes, there is such a thing as sentience.
2) No, it's not the correct term. "Sentience" refers to the ability to distinguish oneself from other objects, and exists in most higher order mammals, as measured by the "mirror test". The term you're thinking of is "sapience".
3) Humans can quite certainly detect sapience. In fact, this is the basis of the "Turing Test" for "strong AI", which every AI so far has resoundingly failed to pass.

As for the rest of your post, the one and only question here is "could actual people be actually harmed by things such as sex bots", and the answer is no.

I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about, nor do you seem to know what the word "sentience" means.
Educate yourself before you just dive into a topic ignorantly.

The Turing test is not perfect and we have AI we know not to be sentient to have already passed it. Intelligence is a spectrum, and there is no clear line, at some point we will have machines, that if programmed for could be considered almost living, though I don't know why we would do that.

...

Take the Beria pill

pcworld.com/article/2361220/computer-said-to-pass-turing-test-by-posing-as-a-teenager.html

Now, of course, it doesn't pass in all cases, but that isn't a requirement of the Turing test. Shit is only getting better, and the Turing test only tells us about the ability of a program to fool a human, not about whether it's actually a thinking entity. A sufficiently complex pre-programmed script, could in theory, pass this test, though it would be extremely impractical to build in the first place, and then it too would not have any intelligence greater than any program today.
Have you ever heard of the Chinese room?

I don't want to get date raped

Yes, I have heard of the Chinese room, otherwise I wouldn't consider the Turing Test worth caring about. And the ability to fully mimic the abilities of a human in conversation about general and specific topics would be clear proof that you have something capable of replacing humans in any other application.

Which is precisely why such scripted approaches and "throw more horsepowerz at it using the same 1800s-era algorithms xdddd" will never work.

Actually sentient refers to if a being can experience pain or not.
You did give the correct definition of sapience.
There is a test for it in amimals called the mirror test.
The test you brought up was only really ment to be a thought experiment. It is not all that useful in real world ai development.

No, not really, because you can have mimicry while not displaying what we call emergent behavior.

Except this is not the current approach, nor has it ever been, because we are not looking to mimic humans for its own sake. We're trying to do it in such a way that we can solve general problems, but we do not need this for the hypothetical sex/partner bot, because fooling the human really is the end goal. The reasons for AI are different, but I think the current approach is good. Rather than trying to get a machine to understand the complex environment, we simplify its environment and pair it with other processes with their own AI. This can, in fact, produce emergent behavior, to the point that entire portions of it might be cut out and streamlined without any single AI actually overseeing the action.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure you're the one who's got it backward. Anything can experience a pain-response unless it's physically numb, the key point is the ability to feel suffering, which (like the mirror test) indicates a "sense of self". That is sentience.

Successfully mimicking a wide-ranging conversation requires the ability for emergent behavior, ipso-facto.

Heh, true. If anything, quite the opposite, given the typical complaints that people have about needy dates.

Not really.

I don't know, a lot of people used to complain my wife was needy, but I liked being relied on. If anything, some people might appreciate a robot that asks them for favors too. People are strange, if we get down to it.

But yeah, Turing is a good test, but nowhere near perfect. I do want to get a sexbot programmed by someone else, though. I wonder what would happen if I asked it to compute Ackerman.

Well, I agree that making video games shouldn't be regarded as social labor.

And you don't need a fucking android as your fucking surrogate Mom that you can fuck. Take care of your own ass.

Robotics opens up whole new paths in what is possible for our society, mass producing fucking nannies for adults would be horrendous. Deal with your own fucking issues like an adult, don't act like technology is going to save you.

Because at the end of the day, even if you got what you wanted, all you would get would be a big metal puppet wrapped in some form of synthetic rubber. You can already buy a fucking blow up doll and it serves the same function while taking up a fraction of the cost.

What I find especially funny is that the feminists who would allow every conceivable sexual act with a woman are against doing so with machines on the grounds of it leading to a negative perception of women.

The femoid shows her true nature in this thread. She fears the sexbot not out of any concern for its intelligence (as indicated by her abysmal arguments). No, she fears the sexbot because she knows that femoids only have their cunt going for them. Sexbots will make females obsolete, and this one even managed to take her mouth off of Chad's cock for 5 seconds to realize her specie's reign of terror is at an end. In the new world order, only 10/10 virgins will even have a chance of survival. Hambeasts like the feminist in this thread will be tossed into the gutter like the trash they are.

Enjoy your second ban.

I disagree, entertainment is a necessity in a society of leisure, and that's what we're aiming for.

And not even that, androids will be useful in other ways, and there is no reason they shouldn't be employed in whatever function we want, nor is there a reason hobbyists should be banned from making them.

Really spooky.

Well, and it would also be a personal assistant and a computer, and a maid, and companion. Its sole purpose necessarily should not be only one thing. It's a general purpose robot.

And we can do that in our own free time. It isn't social labor, it isn't something that actually needs to be done.

Hobbyists won't be able to make them. The sort of robots you're talking about could only be produced in some sort of official capacity. If you want to make some crude metal contraption, go for it, but it likely won't be good for much of anything.

The only spooks here are the shit you're bringing into this thread.

Robots aren't for personal use. They aren't now, and they won't be in the future. The future isn't actually going to look like the Jetsons. We don't have the resources to give every person their own fucking robot, nor would that be a wise use of resources even if we did.

That's not what socially necessary labor means. It means any work that society wants done as a whole. People as a whole do want entertainment, so it is socially necessary.

Fab time could be requested, as automation will already be in full swing at this point, and there is no reason why a collective of hobbyists can't run a fab for precisely this reason, not to mention that if it is a luxury, labor vouchers could be spent on them.

I don't see how. I'm not the one opposing useful technology to "be an adult", whatever that means.

Sure, and neither are computers. We only need those for science and research, and official work. Who would ever need a computer.

Except we pretty much do. The materials that go inside these things isn't rare, nor is it hard to make. The screen in your phone probably has rarer materials, and yet you wouldn't argue that a net-capable device is not a necessity. Or are you going to say that computers are luxuries too and only to be used for work because you can't give computers to people just to play around with?

Oh look, it's THAT faggot. You know, the one who thinks the only games or music that should be allowed to exist are libre indycore dogshit a handful of penniless autists can cobble together in their spare time.

It's really funny because he's wrong even about the potential cost

archive.is/cZJeZ

Costs a lot, but that's because it has years of research and labor. The actual components aren't rare or expensive, and once the manufacturing is down, then it's basically only the cost of materials, especially in an automated economy, not to mention that things like carbon fiber get cheaper to make every day, and because carbon is plentiful, it means it's only going to get easier to make shit like this. It's almost like these anti-bot faggots have to make shit up in order to make it seem immoral to even think about doing some cool shit in the future.

It's labor that, to some extent, society requires to exist and reproduce itself. Entertainment isn't that.

I actually agree with this sentiment. Personal computers are a horrible waste. You don't see people in the third world with their own tech shit.

One of the realities we need to adjust to is the fact that a lot of the luxuries we've grown accustomed to in the 20th and 21st century in the first world isn't sustainable on the large scale (and is probably going away anyhow).

Because there wasn't any entertainment before its commodification by capitalism.

Except it is, and any labor that goes into commodity production is in itself socially necessary labor time. Or are you going to argue that programming software for games is not work. If not, then what is it and how does software acquire value?

Yeah, you also don't see a lot of them with literacy, but one wouldn't argue that books are an unnecessary expense, retard.

You are so massively retarded that it's not even funny. Newsflash: computers get easier and cheaper to produce every day. Why do you think this is? Do you think there is some kind of rare, irreplaceable material in your computer? There isn't. We could keep making them at this rate until the sun explodes and we'd never run out, and we're finding ways to make them out of even more common materials. The simple fact is that computers are going to become more common, not less. The difference might be that they'll last you longer.

And there won't be any comodities under socialism, so don't worry, entertainment won't be comodified either.

There was certainly a lot less choice. Your only real options were:
a) Penniless autists
b) Live performance, the size of each audience proscribing how much you could afford to spend on the work.
c) Patronage by religious/feudal proto-porkies, catering to their shit taste and personal desire for suckups

Copyright certainly has problems, but it allowed for a new business model whereby innumerable consumers separated by time and space could jointly fund the initial or continued recoupment of expenses directly based on popularity with those consumers.

I like a lot of the art that model allows to exist, and I want a new funding model that fulfills its function, not to eliminate that art simply because we're too incompetent to invent that new funding model.

Don't even bother. That retard is a turd worldist that wants you to live for work only instead of liberating you from it. Instead of trying to get everyone up to a standard of living they can enjoy, he wants everyone else to sink down, to the point where he just advocated eliminating personal computing devices. Goodbye wikipedia, discussion forums, long-distance collaboration on projects, etc.

...

Sexbots lay bare the sex dialectics that have been used to exploit men since the 70s and the beginning of the neo liberal era.
Women didn't need men for money since they could earn it themselves so men lost the ability to disipline women with the threat of poverty.
But women gained the ability to disipline men by with holding sexual intimacy, something third wave feminists jealously guarded with increasingly hysterical rhetoric starting with their campaign against print porno mags all the way to today with their campaigns against sex in video games.
This disgusting tactic keeps being reveled to more people as women become more contradictory with their hate of sex robots.
On one hand women will say sex work is exploitative, and as wage labor it is, but they will still be against sex robots, even though they would lead to steep declines in the demands for hookers, because sex robots objectify women.
Sex robots are perhaps the ultimate alienation, as such porky will be quick to force society to adopt them, there simply to much money to be made, it's the private ownership of the oldest trade in the world.

Honestly, some of the debate around sexbots sounds a lot like UBI: Partial emancipation from the capitalist treadmill, or slippery slope to even darker corners of neo-feudalism?

If it keeps incels from killing people out of sexual frustration, then i'm all for it.

It's not a partial emancipation though. It makes proles even more efficient. What people want out of partners is pretty reasonable, someone in shape, mentally stable, not impose a huge cost on them either in the fourth of debt, addiction, a out of wedlock child and not reactionary or boorish and empathetic. But it's impossible to be all those things under capitalism. Particularly the being in shape one

In theory, it could be. After all, earning enough to support a family, or even to have the sex appeal for a relationship, is one of the primary motivations for working hard. Of course, things could also go the other way, like you said. Much like UBI, this would have different effects on different people, and its total effect on society (like UBI) is one I'm ideologically uncertain of even after a great deal of consideration.

The atomized Western lifestyle is unsustainable. We'll still be able to enjoy the benefits of new technology, but it will be more of a communal thing than the white Western suburbanite pipe dream. Sorry if that hurts your fee fees.

And yes, there is rare material in computers. Gold for instance.

Folk art is culture, dependent only on their popularity among people in that culture. Individual works of art are merely expressions of culture, not culture itself, and as such additionally require funding in order to create more ambitious specimens of.

W-What is wrong with objectification.. ?

What is wrong with objectification.. ?

No such balance exists.

Women use dildos while reading Twilight. They don't get to judge.

No such balance exists.

Women use dildos while reading Twilight. They don't get to judge.

As a sex-negative person who gets banned from this site from time to time for being a "SWERF"/"TERF" I'd rather have men exploiting robots than actual women.

But what if they are the ones with all the bombs friend?
>>>/robowaifu/297

OK even though this is obvious b8 m8 I had a giggle.

We have enough gold reserves to build all the computers we'll ever need, and gold connectots are only played. You're fucking delusional..

This. Even though gold is, well, gold, it's still far easier to come by than the compounds used in rare earth magnets. These high performance magnets are pretty crucial to obtaining high torques from relatively lightweight and energy-efficient motors. As primarily mobile platforms, robot waifus will be badly in need of these rare earth metals like neodymium–far more so than gold. Almost ironically, atm Communist China has a virtual lock on these minerals and made a complete embargo on their foreign sales a few years back, after being the world's leading supplier. It's kind of created a mini-crisis in this area of highly efficient electric motors tbh.

Neodymium is no rarer than copper. Don't let the term "rare earth" mislead you.

"Rare earths" doesn't refer to their total occurrence throughout the world's crust, but to their commercially viable occurrence. Current profitably exploitable world neodymium reserves are about 8 megatons, as compared to 950 megatons for copper. This is in spite of copper's spot price of $1.30-$4.60 per pound compared to neodymium at $660-$1100.

You commonly see the same fallacy from nuclear shills who think thorium is a viable substitute for uranium.

We're talking about a socialist society. At that point, price stops having a meaning.

If most of a resource is too difficult to extract for any of its end-use applications to justify the additional effort compared to the small amount in higher-quality reserves, it's going to stay untouched unless those applications become important enough to justify the use of other limited resources to extract those low-quality reserves.

The end of the commodity form doesn't mean the end of scarcity.

Fair enough points all, but as
implies, the price points are of little consideration when the commodity is simply not available (ie, kept under lock) regardless. As the entire world is scrambling to create electric vehicles, the crisis in rare-earth mineral availability is driving both governments and industry to devise ways around the need for them.

I sure hope they succeed–and quickly, because I want my robowaifu harems more than I want an electric car heh.

Give me a synopsis and sell me on it homo man.

Ive always hated the conservative view of pedophilia. I am in no way condoning atrocious actions performed by pedos but they are mentally ill not evil by virtue of their condition. But I think making them not wanna fuck kids is better than making them half fuck a kid.

You're a huge hypocrite since your used a computer to post this, making it labor against its will, oh and don't you dare ever turn it off you baby killer.

But rare earths aren't particularly harder to extract than other metals. Their high price is due to export restrictions, not only that, we can recycle, qnd as we switch to renewable energy, we could conceivably extract all the rare earth metals we will ever need.

toplel.
WONT SOMEONE PLEASE JUST THINK OF THE ELECTRONIC DEVICES?

...

Sci fi movies were a mistake

haha. modern civilization probably was tbqh.

Forgot AnPrim flag

Implying UBI is partial emancipation, when it's simply a further erosion of state power in favor of corporate power.
Once something like UBI gets implemented it will be a political suicide to try and remove it, so the government will be forced to deal with the increased spending, which will have to be lievied either through even harsher taces on the working class and/or by sucking the corporate cock of the day.

Actually, taking a look around this place, there is nothing more "leftypol" than hating on incels

I really hate that because it shits on nb people for no reason, lonely people suffering from alienation.

Leftypol in its battle against reactionary elements has accidentally become a reactionary element against lonely proles. Perhaps our leaders are better at dividing us than we know.

fuck off

Honestly I don't see that much wrong in letting them play with a robot, as long as they are under the supervision of a psychologist there to help them overcome the problem. You don't cure an addict by throwing them in a cell for a month or two, right? Why would this ban have any effect other than fuel an unchecked black market?

Pedophile =/= child molester, one is simply a person affected by a psychological issue, the other a criminal.

And now back on topic, I hate talking of this.

I agree but Im afraid they will just use the Robot in stead of a child instead of tackling the reason why the individual feels a compulsion towards children. Im not against it in theory but I fear the isolation it could cause and general unhealthy behavior it seems to induce.

The only semi-convincing argument I've heard is that sex bots aren't a problem in and of themselves but are symptomatic of the increased alienation in society and commodification as a bandaid on the problem. I have no idea how to stop this though.

also lol at no one questioning how much they would cost and who would afford them

We live in capitalism user. Rich assholes get to play on the moon. Why would robots be a stretch?

No I don't think it's a stretch and I'm not against it. I just think that people who think it'll alleviate any problems for the working class any time soon are naive. In fact, at this rate I'd be surprised if the working class are ever granted access/control over this level of automaton for any reason

I understand your point, but the vast majority of child molesters are pretty aware of the fact they are breaking the law and engaging in socially unacceptable behaviour, they do not feel threatened by a ban. On the other hand pedophiles that never engaged and have no desire to engage in criminal behaviour are acutely aware of how society sees them and a further ban will have little effect on their behaviour.
A ban on child robots will only end with them on the black market, where they still will have some positive effect by lowering the demand for other "content" (damn it,do we really have to talk about this?).

All I got from this is the capitalistic system should be abolished and pedophiles should be given proper mental health treatment.

Welcome to neo-feudalism, with robots instead of serfs and a good chunck of the population jobless, moneyless and powerless.

I want off mr zucc's ride

Well, as the original founder of /robowaifu/ I can tell you that I've thought both long and hard on this topic. I believe the companion robot industry will follow one of two courses;
A) The hobbyist – aka Maker – movement will gain traction and be able compete reasonably well with the industry behemoths–just at a smaller scale–and reasonably practical companion bots will eventually be able to be had at costs comparable to the used car industry. Or,
B) The industry will be regulated and codified unceasingly before it ever takes off, and the efforts of hobbyists such as myself will be driven underground with a commensurate dearth of availability. In this second dystopic scenario only big money wins.

Further, I consider that basically on either path there will be many similarities to the automobile design, production, and sales industries, and it doesn't seem unlikely that the valuations will be somewhat similar to the end customers as well. The super rich will obtain exclusive models, the middle class will obtain functional but not overly showy ones, and the lower class will settle for either low end or used models.

Regardless of any of these eventual outcomes, I have little doubt that the pent-up demand is growing rapidly, and will eventually exceed that of any industry on earth besides food production. The income potential for early movers will be astronomical and will result in the highest valuations in trading history.

You're a socialist?

Don't forget to like and share!

I'm not reading all this shit. Someone give me a TL:dr

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Rare earths like neodymium are expensive because the overwhelming majority of terrestrial rare earth deposits are dispersed very thinly across the crust. The majority of rare earths would require incredibly retarded means to extract, like grinding up whole mountains worth of granite or filtering entire oceans in order to get paltry amounts, versus the small amount of high-quality ores that produce appreciable amounts of rare earths (in fact, many rare earths have NO GOOD DEPOSITS, so the only reason they're available in any real quantity is from byproducts of processing more economical resources such as bauxite aluminum ore, in spite of the amount of rare earth equalling a tiny fraction of the aluminum/etc yield). In comparison, resources like copper are so cheap because little effort is needed to extract comparitavely enormous quantities of it from numerous rich ore deposits. This imposes a pretty much binary choice of "do you want a pound of neodymium, or a quarter ton of copper?" for a given investment of societal effort.

That said, the good part about rare earths in current high technology is that, as I noted upthread, only infinitessimal quantities are needed in any given finished product. And as for recycling, the fact that they're so ludicrously expensive means that even very demanding recycling procedures are justified for the tiniest yield, since they still have superior RoI compared to extracting virgin material.

>taking your first ride in Grandpa's old hand-me-down 20'69 beater.

Guess I didn't finish that thought very well tbh.

Can't say I am. Honestly, I'm hoping Ted Fucking Nugent runs in 2020.

Topkek.
ftfy user. at least if i have my way :^)

i feel like i've just had a lightning primer in rare earth mineralogy and economics. thanks user.

So are you saying pedos would fuck children robots like heroin addicts use methadone? You know that shit has been proven it doesn't work, methadone patients always get on heroin again.

My point was that just like drugs, child porngraphy has always been banned and yet there still are plenty of child molesters around. Banning child robots would have little to none effect, while they could be used by psychologists to help pedophiles overcome their issue without putting any actual children in danger of being abused.

This is really similar to the discourse on lolis honestly, should we ban all depictions of fictional cartoon children, because there are people fapping to them? The answer is such a ban would have little effect, so there's no point.

Why ban child shaped dolls and bots?
Explain how exactly it harms anyone. Do you have anything whatsoever to support your position other then your personal feelings?

Look it up if you think I am wrong.

I would personally benefit from them (if I could actually afford them)
I have no desire for romantic or even very close interpersonal relationships. But I do still have sexual urges. Such a device could satisfy my primitive sexual needs so I could get on with my life. Sort of like masturbation, porn, and a hug pillow all in one interactive device.

The people against such hypothetical ronots tend to be the same type of hysterical anti-male sexually crusaders who hate porn or any display of sexually attractive content that a heterosexual man would enjoy.
So basically just feminist and the people influenced by them.

It literally hurts no one and actually has the potential to help quite a few people in a large variety of context.

...

Women desire penis, that must mean they desire to be Men!! *sniffs another line*
In all seriousness im reading his compilation of books about the mind of the masses and its been good so far.

These needs to be a future product name subtext haha

Notice that while the origin of both does share some meaning of stimulus response or being aware of things, "sapient" has exclusive meanings related to knowledge or understanding, whereas the furthest "sentient" goes in that direction is merely notice or acknowledgement.

The fact there's any opposition to the idea of sex bots is proof that humanity is not worth saving. Nuclear annihilation can't come soon enough.

People keep bringing up feminist as being opposed but you can't forget that the religious right wouldn't like the idea of sex bots ether.

The religious right aren't the ones currently complaining about them.

Maybe once they are actually on the market they will fuss but by then it is basically too late. Once developed the market will do what it always does. If there is a demand able to be fulfilled then someone will for the right price.

I really wish they'd stop trying to make them look like humans and instead embrace their sensual capacity as synthetics.

Correct.

Market demand drives what is mass produced.
There is a far higher demand for dolls and bots that look as close to human as technology will allow.

Who?

The "ominous alliance": Christard fundies & lezbo feminazis.

>>>/liberalpol/

OK you went to far

What is a child is based on age. If it looks like a child, weighs like a child, has a body of a child, but is forty it is an adult.

A non-issue being touted by the people whose very existence is using non-issues to divert people from actual issues, SJWs.

This doesn't even make sense.

Retarded spooky pearl-clutching, on par with "TV/rock music/videogames will corrupt our youth.

Anyone and everyone who seriously complains about this should be disregarded, blacklisted, and if possible thrown into a tar pit.