A.I replacing women in the future

[Lark]

Women one up men? You mean through supercifical government quotas and laws, yes. Go ahead take your real women I doubt you'll ever find one though and be able to marry one without getting a divorce and having the state take your earnings.

I dont need your permission.

How do you like those apples?

- - - Updated - - -

Most men are married to women. What are you on about?

The dude cant get a date. /endthread

 

[jixmixfix]

Most men are married to women. What are you on about?

no most men aren't married to women.

 

[Luke O]

no most men aren't married to women.

Who are they married to then? It ain't guys.

 

[jixmixfix]

I dont need your permission.

How do you like those apples?

- - - Updated - - -

Do it huckleberry if you can.

 

[Lark]

The computer isn't the object I'm interacting with. I'm interacting with you, a stubborn individual with your own opinions and needs. Because I choose to, and I get enjoyment from such things. On the same level, I'm interested in relationships primarily because there are people with free will involved. Take that away, all you have is a fuck toy.

Sure, maybe people who don't choose to negotiate things may not be incapable, but if they aren't it doubly makes their android a glorified fleshlight. If they are, it makes it a therapy unit. If the AI has free will, then it's an actual relationship between people again.

Unless it's so incredibly above you, then you're the fuck toy.

People are awesome. Women especially.

No AI could replace them, no matter how slick.

 

[jixmixfix]

Who are they married to then? It ain't guys.

They are single duhhhhhhh

 

[Lark]

Do it huckleberry if you can.

huckleberry?

 

[Luke O]

They are single duhhhhhhh

You know there are men over the age of 30 right?

 

[jixmixfix]

As some sectors of society have been working to make AI systems more like real humans, others have been relentlessly turning humans, often women, into something more akin to a computer. Just think of all those people who deal with the public on the phone or even in person in customer service roles. Their jobs consist of reading scripts and exchanging numbers in a pleasant but impersonal manner (credit cards, account number, phone number, product number, confirmation number, etc.)

I suppose all the men who work in construction, factories or the military aren't turned into "human robots" either. Robots that are shot at, destroyed and replaced when they don't function properly in hazardous environments. If only the majority or even half of those workers were women then we wouldn't have anything to complain about

In some sense, then, we don't have to replace women with AI because the "replacement" has already been done. On the other hand, it would be better to let these women go back to being human all the time, and have men who really want an AI companion to get a robot, rather than turning real women into something they are not. A latter day Stepford (original movie), I supposed one could say, reserved for those who can't/won't handle real human relationships.

Did it ever occur to you that people who work in lower end positions are put there because they lack the ability, desire and skill to work anywhere else? I guess that's all men's fault right?

Actually, they don't. Individual differences far outweigh whatever statistical trends one might see for a given sex and sexual orientation.

Wrong, genetic makeup is an important factor for desired traits in a mate. Men are more inclined to find a mate they find visually attractive, while women are more inclined to find a mate with higher social status.

 

[miss fortune]

KNOCK IT OFF GUYS... NO PERSONAL INSULTS DAMMIT... THIS IS NOT THE POST-APOCALYPSE, THERE ARE RULES!

 

[Lark]

KNOCK IT OFF GUYS... NO PERSONAL INSULTS DAMMIT... THIS IS NOT THE POST-APOCALYPSE, THERE ARE RULES!

In darkness and secure,
By the secret ladder, disguised–oh, happy chance!–
In darkness and in concealment,
My house being now at rest.

- st john of the cross, dark night of the soul

 

[EcK]

first off... if it's designed to act as a comfort woman for somebody, it's still a sex toy, just like a blowup doll

secondly, mean doesn't mean not true

and thirdly...wait... would an AI even be able to give consent?

if they DO have personalities and such programmed into them and can interact much like people do I can see the legal issue of their personhood being brought up... but if they are programmed to love someone would that be removing their consent from the situation

many, many problems with this entire situation

And if someome created an ai sex bot for their own use. Would it be incest?

 

[Slate]

Hopefully I don't upset too many people here, I'm honestly open to conversation. I research a lot of debates/conflicts, haven't touched the gender debate in a while, so we'll see how much I remember.

Ultimately, I think AI replacing women is a step down from healthy relationships in general. A healthy relationship is about both give and take, which is paramount to operating in groups, but the problem in the West is that third wave feminism aka (intersectional feminists) are a dominate force in Western Society, and that is anything but healthy. Proponents of sex bots usually fall into the MGTOW group.

(third wave summed up in six seconds by their own words)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA0aKjY8K50

Why is AI a step down? Well, first off a functional society values role based and traditional hierarchy, while not all hierarchies are equal they do require a two way give and take which teaches us about distribution of responsibility, cohesion, etc. Having an AI companion removes the give part which would hamper ones ability to learn such traits.

On the other hand, intersectional feminism seeks a one directional system of give and take. Particularly maintaining the old advantages under traditionalism without any of the costs. Comparing systems it would look like this.

Traditionalism- Social obligations / societal expectations precede rights. In that if you are outed and expected to serve a particular function, you need the right to enable you to serve that specific function, this is seen across cultures. So the system within traditionalism translates to Group 1 receives benefit A and the Cost of benefit B and Group 2 receives the benefit of Y at the cost of Z. (1:+A-B, 2:+Y-Z)

Traditionalism isn't the only system, you can advocate zero responsibility between the genders, which is what the MGTOW people advocate assuming I have not mistaken their position, thus they want to do away with the whole benefit/cost trade offs, which in my guess is what the OP registers as. Of course there is also intersectional feminism which also opposes traditionalism by advocating the equalization of benefit A, effectively removing it from the equation while some also focus on eliminating cost Z. (1:-B, 2:+Y(-Z))

So tying this in, I see sex/companion bots as a way of dealing with intersectionality, by avoiding it implemented by the people who compose of MGTOW. As oppose to traditionalist who challenge intersectional culture with their own, PUAs who simply use intersectional culture against itself, or male feminists who conform to intersectionality as a way of staying in the market.

 

[EcK]

Would a term become mainstream to define attraction to robots?
"Damn those robosexuals"

 

[jixmixfix]

if you design it to love you and NOT fall for anyone else, you are sacrificing your ability to actually be loved

if you design it to have free will, there's a good chance it might just pick someone else

I'll admit that I do have a type, but a lot of guys fall into that broad category and I have been in love more than once... which suggests that while humans may be predisposed towards a certain appearance or something along those lines, there is a lot more flexibility there than you would get with an AI

You can design it to love traits that are not deemed to be valuable by society. For example North American society worships materialism/social status over moral virtue.

if you are choosing how it thinks and views things that IS control though. part of being a human being and living in society in general is learning to get along with those who are different than you and may even have different views than you do... that sort of ability gives us the ability to function as a society. if people have the option of opting out of learning how to get along with others and compromise what is going to happen to the ties that keep society at large functioning?

That is my point, society isn't optimally functioning, the robot would be like band aid or a crutch to get people living at a higher quality of standard.

I'm not saying that it's wrong for someone to love a robot... I'm just saying that desiring one because you are unwilling to do what everyone else does and learn to be a fully developed person isn't a very good reason to seek one out

Why should an individual sacrifice their morals/lives to be apart of something they don't want to be apart of? Where is the free will in that?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I once went to a dance at a school, not the school I went to, and asked a girl I liked the look of to dance. I didn't know her. After dancing she mentioned that it was the rule that you couldn't refuse a dance. I felt like that took all the joy out of it.

So, no.

I think that's a good allegory. As hard as it is to define or prove will, it is still true that unless I believed this AI chose to be with me in spite of having the will not to, or in other words, that it wanted to be with me, I think something would always be missing. Admit it or not, I think validation is a very big part of our relationships with other people. Can you ever feel validated by an AI programmed to serve you? What about understanding, what does that mean? Can this AI understand you? And I would have to wonder, if you actually made an AI capable of these things, would they automatically create sentience as an emergent property anyhow? Then it's basically just another person and the discussion isn't very interesting.

 

[Lark]

In darkness and secure,
By the secret ladder, disguised–oh, happy chance!–
In darkness and in concealment,
My house being now at rest.

- st john of the cross, dark night of the soul

I wasnt insulting anyone eejit (clarification: term of endearment)

 

[Lark]

I think that's a good allegory. As hard as it is to define or prove will, it is still true that unless I believed this AI chose to be with me in spite of having the will not to, or in other words, that it wanted to be with me, I think something would always be missing. Admit it or not, I think validation is a very big part of our relationships with other people. Can you ever feel validated by an AI programmed to serve you? What about understanding, what does that mean? Can this AI understand you? And I would have to wonder, if you actually made an AI capable of these things, would they automatically create sentience as an emergent property anyhow? Then it's basically just another person and the discussion isn't very interesting.

I think its something more fundamental than that though, if I can use Red Dwarf as an example, there's the computer AI "Holly" but they are a fundamentally different sort of character and companionship to either the hologram of a dead crew member or the humanoid creature evolved from the ship's cat, not purely by virtue of free will.

A machine is still going to be a machine, even if it was to break its programming and possess free will etc.

At the very best it would be a different sort of life form and not a substitute for an existing female companion.

 

[Lark]

And if someome created an ai sex bot for their own use. Would it be incest?

No, it wouldnt, why would it be? That's kind of bizarre.

Actually, no, its in keeping with "these are all just words" kind of thinking which is a little pervasive, here and generally.

 

[miss fortune]

I wasnt insulting anyone eejit (clarification: term of endearment)

were too...