5 ms·

We Are Living in a Robot Moment

54 points by huac 11y ago

guard-of-terra 11y ago
And yet I don't see any broad robot-making movement even remotely similar to early 00s FOSS explosion. Neither an active startup scene (no doubt they are there, just not getting much attention). Even 3D printing kind of lost coverage. While we're at it, let's make a robot that collects plastic bottles and other recyclable garbage? And also one that cuts Heracleum sosnowskyi and makes biodisel out of it?
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  This is my thinking as well. Robots have become the new jetpack it seems. Lots of conjecture and promises from people unfamiliar with the industry. I read these articles from time to time and they more or less assume we have some level of working AI and cheap robot arms and legs with the degrees of freedom and strength a person has. We're not remotely there. In fact, services like Google Now, Cortana, and Siri are comically well... stupid. Expert systems tied to various databases does not make for a very intelligent agent, at least on the level we're talking about here. The home robot market is also comically stupid and filled with things like Pepper or Jibo or Robotbase which are little more than ipads on wheels. As a robot hobbyist I'm very bewildered about all this empty futurism. What robots have these journalists seen that can trivially roll into McDonalds are start taking orders, for example. How are they handle natural language processing in a noisy and high speed environment full of fault prone humans? If robots like these are going to come about we'll first be seeing stuff like this on the hobbyist level, then in children's toys and other novelty seeking industries, and only later in places like retail or offices. I'm sure physical automation paired with intelligence will eventually eat the world, but eventually isn't two years from now. It might be more like two hundred. Or even two thousand. General purpose robotics is a hard problem. Its not remotely solved.
  - thehoff 11y ago
    I agree here. Maybe this is part of the slow going evolution. We are kind of on the cusp of all these things that are very slowly starting to happen. We have robots that are taking the place of patrolling grounds, serving food, delivering medicines, vacuuming our floors. All somewhat mundane things. Now we have toys like what they are doing with Barbie (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/magazine/barbie-wants-to-get-to-know-your-child.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/magazine/barbie-wants-to-g...). This seems interesting as we are now starting to play with our emotions (as pointed out in the article with the AIBO) more and more. Seems that this is just moving a lot slower than everyone anticipated.
- a3voices 11y ago
  I think the difference is that you can make software using just a computer, whereas for a robot you need to order a bunch of physical parts and put them together. The cost is much higher and you can't just tweak physical parts like code. If you mess up, you have to buy more stuff. Also to make truly top quality robots, you need to know how to weld and cut metal, or mold plastic. If every kid had a warehouse in his backyard full of robot parts and tools, it might look more like the FOSS movement.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Robots have this unfortunate property in that they are expensive. I don't think there was ever a fast paced explosion of any expensive technology (at least by today's standards; by VII century standards, the steam engine exploded). But that does not mean there isn't rapid improvement. It's just not distributed, and will take a long time to get into everybody's home. Now, about this: > Even 3D printing kind of lost coverage. That's the natural pause between it being new and it getting useful.
electricblue 11y ago
I see a common thread running through all of gender politics and specifically objectification, the idea that you are what you enjoy doing. You are not a free willed person with a more or less set amount of empathy, you are an unmolded piece of clay and every piece of entertainment you consume will shape you into the type of person the author presumably wants you to be. I find this idea preposterous. I think there are plenty of serious social problems with sex robots without going to a place where Jimmy + Sex Robot = Jimmy the Serial Rapist
- mason240 11y ago
  There is a weird resurgence of the 80's moral panic against pornography and the 90's moral panic against video games.
  - anon4 11y ago
    Ahem and the 00's panic against violent video games (Jack Thompson anyone?)
madaxe_again 11y ago
I'm impressed that he got through a whole article on robots, sexual interactions with them, their implications for humanity, and all the rest, without once mentioning Asimov, who arguably thought more about the implications of a robotic society than any other. The long and the short of it is that it's somewhat inevitable that we become the robots, that the line between biology and technology blurs, that "human" ultimately means something broader than we consider today. Either that or we destroy ourselves.
varelse 11y ago
Seems like the _Reefer Madness_ version of _The Robot Apocalypse_ to me. @#$% that Star Trek episode, Futurama IMO covered robot/human relations much better and more realistically with "I Dated A Robot": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Dated_a_Robot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Dated_a_Robot
- douche 11y ago
  Or Proposition Infinity "Even ghost and horse!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_Infinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_Infinity
elipsey 11y ago
"giving heterosexual male desire free rein among anatomically female sex robots will only worsen men’s objectification of women and children generally" So unless this was quoted out of contex, hetero-male sexuality is the only kind that's anti-social? Well, that is certainly a relief! My gf owns two sex bots (older, dumber models), and I was worried she would start holding out on them unitl they gave her money. It's also reassureing to know that the gays will treat their sexbots humanely -- I was afraid they try to buy them scented candels or move in with them on the third date! As long as the sexbots don't fall into the cruel clutches of straght males, everything will be fine.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  likely her concern and that of other SJWs is that robots will be created in the ideal image that many have for both men and women and not in the image most of the SJWs actually possess. if anything the biggest objectors tend to be people who themselves never can be the target of such activity
  - elipsey 11y ago
    Well, I read Richardson's paper. Here are a couple of tasty quotes: “Baron-Cohen suggests that the higher prevalence in crime, sexual abuse, the use of prostitutes and murder are disproportionately committed by men and show that men lack empathy in comparison to females [8].” “This narrative is also replayed in the production of video nasties, sexual abuse images of children in virtual reality settings [11] and the sexual and racial violence seen in some video games such as Grand Theft Auto where gamers are rewarded for killing prostitutes [12].” I don't think Richardson is jealous of prostitutes, I think she is convinced by evidence that the sex crimes discussed in this paper are predominantly committed by men. I'm convinced too, but I don't accept that it follows that men in general lack empathy. It could be the case that rapists and murderers, while predominantly male, are not representative of the modal male. I think the problem with the hypothesis that sex crimes are caused by a lack of empathy in men is that the average empathy of a gender is not sufficient to explain the behavior of all it's members. So for an example of a similar argument applied to women: Most infanticide is committed by women. Therefore, women are less empathetic on average then men. Should we ban dolls that objectify babies, or should we look for some other explanation?
tachyonbeam 11y ago
From the article: > "If I have sex with a human-like robot that I’m free to dominate and objectify, then my brain is not going to be able to compartmentalize that behavior as robot-specific" This is ignoring the fact that lots of people already have crazy BDSM sex behind closed doors, and that prostitutes have existed since the dawn of time. You don't need robots to see that people are in fact able to compartmentalize their behavior. I know, because I've been part of the BDSM scene, and I don't just assume that every woman out there wants to be dominated. When realistic sex robots come out, they are going to sell, and yes, the clients will likely be over 95% male. I don't think this will lead to some collapse of society. I think it will give sexually frustrated people a good outlet. That might not be such a terrible thing. Maybe we'll end up living in a society that's slightly more relaxed when it comes to sex. There's some interesting implications to think about. For one, you can obviously make sex robots look as tall and thin as you want. It will be difficult for flesh and blood humans to compete with them in terms of appearance. You could say this will lead to even more unhealthy body image standards, but maybe it will be the opposite. At some point, when the sex robots end up looking like anime characters, trying to compete with the said sex robots in terms of appearance will become entirely pointless. The likely outcome of that is some kind of counter-culture of people who don't wear makeup, don't spend tens of hours at the gym and generally don't try to look like superfit robots... Who knows, maybe having a slight weight surplus will end up being a turn on for lots of people, because it's kind of obvious evidence that you are in fact not a robot.
run4yourlives2 11y ago
"The founder of the Campaign Against Sex Robots, the English ethicist Kathleen Richardson, not unreasonably makes this an issue of gender and power, arguing that giving heterosexual male desire free rein among anatomically female sex robots will only worsen men’s objectification of women and children generally, and thus reinforce the violent inequalities already present in society.giving heterosexual male desire free rein among anatomically female sex robots will only worsen men’s objectification of women and children generally" Remember folks, men are evil creatures that should be repressed, lest they harm even more women and children. The argument is basically that listening to heavy metal and playing FPS video games will turn you into a mass murdering child rapist. Simplistic and easily dismissed at best.

54 points by huac 11y ago

And yet I don't see any broad robot-making movement even remotely similar to early 00s FOSS explosion. Neither an active startup scene (no doubt they are there, just not getting much attention). Even 3D printing kind of lost coverage. While we're at it, let's make a robot that collects plastic bottles and other recyclable garbage? And also one that cuts Heracleum sosnowskyi and makes biodisel out of it?

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
This is my thinking as well. Robots have become the new jetpack it seems. Lots of conjecture and promises from people unfamiliar with the industry. I read these articles from time to time and they more or less assume we have some level of working AI and cheap robot arms and legs with the degrees of freedom and strength a person has. We're not remotely there. In fact, services like Google Now, Cortana, and Siri are comically well... stupid. Expert systems tied to various databases does not make for a very intelligent agent, at least on the level we're talking about here. The home robot market is also comically stupid and filled with things like Pepper or Jibo or Robotbase which are little more than ipads on wheels. As a robot hobbyist I'm very bewildered about all this empty futurism. What robots have these journalists seen that can trivially roll into McDonalds are start taking orders, for example. How are they handle natural language processing in a noisy and high speed environment full of fault prone humans? If robots like these are going to come about we'll first be seeing stuff like this on the hobbyist level, then in children's toys and other novelty seeking industries, and only later in places like retail or offices. I'm sure physical automation paired with intelligence will eventually eat the world, but eventually isn't two years from now. It might be more like two hundred. Or even two thousand. General purpose robotics is a hard problem. Its not remotely solved.
- thehoff 11y ago
  I agree here. Maybe this is part of the slow going evolution. We are kind of on the cusp of all these things that are very slowly starting to happen. We have robots that are taking the place of patrolling grounds, serving food, delivering medicines, vacuuming our floors. All somewhat mundane things. Now we have toys like what they are doing with Barbie (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/magazine/barbie-wants-to-get-to-know-your-child.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/magazine/barbie-wants-to-g...). This seems interesting as we are now starting to play with our emotions (as pointed out in the article with the AIBO) more and more. Seems that this is just moving a lot slower than everyone anticipated.
a3voices 11y ago
I think the difference is that you can make software using just a computer, whereas for a robot you need to order a bunch of physical parts and put them together. The cost is much higher and you can't just tweak physical parts like code. If you mess up, you have to buy more stuff. Also to make truly top quality robots, you need to know how to weld and cut metal, or mold plastic. If every kid had a warehouse in his backyard full of robot parts and tools, it might look more like the FOSS movement.
marcosdumay 11y ago
Robots have this unfortunate property in that they are expensive. I don't think there was ever a fast paced explosion of any expensive technology (at least by today's standards; by VII century standards, the steam engine exploded). But that does not mean there isn't rapid improvement. It's just not distributed, and will take a long time to get into everybody's home. Now, about this: > Even 3D printing kind of lost coverage. That's the natural pause between it being new and it getting useful.

electricblue 11y ago

I see a common thread running through all of gender politics and specifically objectification, the idea that you are what you enjoy doing. You are not a free willed person with a more or less set amount of empathy, you are an unmolded piece of clay and every piece of entertainment you consume will shape you into the type of person the author presumably wants you to be. I find this idea preposterous. I think there are plenty of serious social problems with sex robots without going to a place where Jimmy + Sex Robot = Jimmy the Serial Rapist

mason240 11y ago
There is a weird resurgence of the 80's moral panic against pornography and the 90's moral panic against video games.
- anon4 11y ago
  Ahem and the 00's panic against violent video games (Jack Thompson anyone?)

madaxe_again 11y ago

I'm impressed that he got through a whole article on robots, sexual interactions with them, their implications for humanity, and all the rest, without once mentioning Asimov, who arguably thought more about the implications of a robotic society than any other. The long and the short of it is that it's somewhat inevitable that we become the robots, that the line between biology and technology blurs, that "human" ultimately means something broader than we consider today. Either that or we destroy ourselves.

varelse 11y ago

Seems like the _Reefer Madness_ version of _The Robot Apocalypse_ to me. @#$% that Star Trek episode, Futurama IMO covered robot/human relations much better and more realistically with "I Dated A Robot": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Dated_a_Robot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Dated_a_Robot

douche 11y ago
Or Proposition Infinity "Even ghost and horse!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_Infinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_Infinity

elipsey 11y ago

"giving heterosexual male desire free rein among anatomically female sex robots will only worsen men’s objectification of women and children generally" So unless this was quoted out of contex, hetero-male sexuality is the only kind that's anti-social? Well, that is certainly a relief! My gf owns two sex bots (older, dumber models), and I was worried she would start holding out on them unitl they gave her money. It's also reassureing to know that the gays will treat their sexbots humanely -- I was afraid they try to buy them scented candels or move in with them on the third date! As long as the sexbots don't fall into the cruel clutches of straght males, everything will be fine.

Shivetya 11y ago
likely her concern and that of other SJWs is that robots will be created in the ideal image that many have for both men and women and not in the image most of the SJWs actually possess. if anything the biggest objectors tend to be people who themselves never can be the target of such activity
- elipsey 11y ago
  Well, I read Richardson's paper. Here are a couple of tasty quotes: “Baron-Cohen suggests that the higher prevalence in crime, sexual abuse, the use of prostitutes and murder are disproportionately committed by men and show that men lack empathy in comparison to females [8].” “This narrative is also replayed in the production of video nasties, sexual abuse images of children in virtual reality settings [11] and the sexual and racial violence seen in some video games such as Grand Theft Auto where gamers are rewarded for killing prostitutes [12].” I don't think Richardson is jealous of prostitutes, I think she is convinced by evidence that the sex crimes discussed in this paper are predominantly committed by men. I'm convinced too, but I don't accept that it follows that men in general lack empathy. It could be the case that rapists and murderers, while predominantly male, are not representative of the modal male. I think the problem with the hypothesis that sex crimes are caused by a lack of empathy in men is that the average empathy of a gender is not sufficient to explain the behavior of all it's members. So for an example of a similar argument applied to women: Most infanticide is committed by women. Therefore, women are less empathetic on average then men. Should we ban dolls that objectify babies, or should we look for some other explanation?

tachyonbeam 11y ago

From the article: > "If I have sex with a human-like robot that I’m free to dominate and objectify, then my brain is not going to be able to compartmentalize that behavior as robot-specific" This is ignoring the fact that lots of people already have crazy BDSM sex behind closed doors, and that prostitutes have existed since the dawn of time. You don't need robots to see that people are in fact able to compartmentalize their behavior. I know, because I've been part of the BDSM scene, and I don't just assume that every woman out there wants to be dominated. When realistic sex robots come out, they are going to sell, and yes, the clients will likely be over 95% male. I don't think this will lead to some collapse of society. I think it will give sexually frustrated people a good outlet. That might not be such a terrible thing. Maybe we'll end up living in a society that's slightly more relaxed when it comes to sex. There's some interesting implications to think about. For one, you can obviously make sex robots look as tall and thin as you want. It will be difficult for flesh and blood humans to compete with them in terms of appearance. You could say this will lead to even more unhealthy body image standards, but maybe it will be the opposite. At some point, when the sex robots end up looking like anime characters, trying to compete with the said sex robots in terms of appearance will become entirely pointless. The likely outcome of that is some kind of counter-culture of people who don't wear makeup, don't spend tens of hours at the gym and generally don't try to look like superfit robots... Who knows, maybe having a slight weight surplus will end up being a turn on for lots of people, because it's kind of obvious evidence that you are in fact not a robot.

run4yourlives2 11y ago

"The founder of the Campaign Against Sex Robots, the English ethicist Kathleen Richardson, not unreasonably makes this an issue of gender and power, arguing that giving heterosexual male desire free rein among anatomically female sex robots will only worsen men’s objectification of women and children generally, and thus reinforce the violent inequalities already present in society.giving heterosexual male desire free rein among anatomically female sex robots will only worsen men’s objectification of women and children generally" Remember folks, men are evil creatures that should be repressed, lest they harm even more women and children. The argument is basically that listening to heavy metal and playing FPS video games will turn you into a mass murdering child rapist. Simplistic and easily dismissed at best.