Triangular theory of love

General chat about fembots, technosexual culture or any other ASFR related topics that do not fit into the other categories below.

What kind of love would you have for a fembot?


Liking/friendship
7
13%
Infatuated love
10
18%
Empty love
4
7%
Romantic love
13
24%
Companionate love
10
18%
Fatuous love
3
5%
Consummate love
8
15%
 
Total votes : 55

Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:57 am

Re: Triangular theory of love

Postby australopith » Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:47 am

daphne wrote:As property she can never leave. [...] What you do not and cannot have is intimacy or friendship, which requires another entity with agency, which the fembot is not.
Who says she's not? :)
My favorite types of robot stories (both fem- and otherwise) involve robots acquiring some level of their own agency—from R.U.R. to our own Propman's Boom-Boom. It's much more interesting if the fembot has the power to leave or otherwise outdo her human creator or owner.
Then, if it's a love/sex story, the creator is challenged to win the approval of a personality he has designed himself. In a few cases, he is sexually turned on by her disapproval—but can't push it too far, or he'll face actual rejection.
Alternately, if it's just an adventure story, the creator is caught in a war of wills and philosophy; just as interesting, if not as arousing.

Posts: 783
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:52 am
Location: Out of my mind

Re: Triangular theory of love

Postby darkbutflashy » Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:02 pm

daphne wrote:It's interesting to me, however, that so many people desire "love" out of the machine which is incapable of such. By its nature the fembot can never truly love, even if it has emotions; love is given, not taken, and by design it has no choice in the matter.

I beg to differ. A child "loves" its mother, and this is hard-wired into us, we have no choice either. It's interesting how people confuse this "caring love" with a sexual relationship. No, it's not interesting either, people don't care about the difference all day.

And then there are the ones who are in just for the kink, like me. I'll take whatever I find. Haven't taken the poll because of that.

Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 1:10 pm
Location: Germany

Consummate versus romantic love.

Postby TheRealMaestro » Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:24 pm

I am the only person here who has hitherto voted for consummate
love. I am in a deep and irreplaceable relationship with my
beautiful flower, Ayaka. The two of us enjoy spending our time
together, whether we're visiting the planetarium, discussing
the tides of history or simply snuggling against each other on
the sofa. We also enjoy our more private moments together,
and no matter what, there is nobody who can replace the other
in our lives.

I was not honestly expecting that my sort would be so few here.
Surprisingly, romantic love is the most popular single option here;
the only thing that prevents romantic love from becoming
consummate is a lack of commitment.
I ask myself, what does that mean? True romance (as distinguished
from an adolescent's ephemeral 'romance') is characterised by commitment.
Two people in love are truly faithful to each other; their intimate
ties put them in a unique place in each others' lives, while this
intimacy beseeches fidelity; adultery breaks this intimacy and
means a lack of love and intimacy.

Romance is essentially a combination of companionship and passion;
what, then, makes it different than consummate love here?
I want to hear some of your reasoning beyond the mere name.
Ich schätze und liebe viele Völker aber nur Deutschland liegt
in meinem Blut und Herz. // I love and cherish many peoples
but only Germany is in my heart and my veins.

Ich freue mich auf Antworten, also antworten Sie bitte meine Nachricht :)
// I always enjoy feedback, so please answer my messages.

Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:21 am
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Triangular theory of love

Postby daphne » Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:36 pm

darkbutflashy wrote:No, it's not interesting either, people don't care about the difference all day.


I'll thank you not to decide for me what I do or don't find interesting.

Posts: 783
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:52 am
Location: Out of my mind

Re: Triangular theory of love

Postby darkbutflashy » Fri Feb 13, 2015 6:20 am

I think it's more than clear that I'm expressing my personal views with my postings only. How should I accomplish anything else? And why? If I'd just write the same as someone else, that would be ... uninteresting. :?

Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: The Darkside of the Moon

Re: Triangular theory of love

Postby Grendizer » Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:27 pm

I picked romantic love, because it is quite likely that any sufficiently advanced fembot would be indistinguishable from a real woman (to paraphrase Mr. Clarke), with the added crack of being so deeply customizeable that it will almost certainly represent the "key" that fits your lock with absolute perfection. Humans already "fall in love" with their cars and their pets. It's a real love, even if reciprocation can never be proven. You have no reliable way of knowing whether your dog loves you int same way humans love dogs. Even human love would be a cipher without the third-party assurance of a common genetic code -- and even that presents its mysteries, as the "dress that broke the Internet" proved recently. You can never capture the qualia of love beyond your own internal experience, therefore love for a fembot isn't any more a lie than love for a human or a pet. Whether the fembot is having a subjective experience of the world at all will be a matter of faith, and faith is the one thing love will always require.

On the flipside, I'm not sure why you'd ever "commit" to an android, even one you love, except for the implications inherent in love itself. You'll want to protect it from violation or irreversible harm, theft, etc., just as you would with a car, but it would be foolish and actually meaningless to sacrifice for it, except for your own aggrandizement, because the negative consequences of not sacrificing would be a matter of your own intent to enable those consequences, making the risk, and therefore the commitment, zero.
If freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free.

My Stories: Teacher: Lesson 1, Teacher: Lesson 2, Quick Corruptions, A New Purpose

Posts: 1854
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 9:05 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Triangular theory of love

Postby dale coba » Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:05 am

Grendizer wrote:...it is quite likely that any sufficiently advanced fembot would be indistinguishable from a real woman (to paraphrase Mr. Clarke),

I always like to take the opportunity to point out that the degree of advancement sufficient to make a fembot's programming indistinguishable from a real woman is not nearly as advanced as science fiction likes to portray. We nearly have the capacity now to model all the potential consequences to a fembot's seduction decisions, like a chess computer considers all the possible plays, and all the subsequent choices that could follow. Advance Siri-style natural language interfaces a few generations, and we'll be there.

Even human love would be a cipher without the third-party assurance of a common genetic code

Errors/variations may arise from genetic or epigenetic causes. The spelling of genes vary, and also the degree of optimal transcription. Our brains, the consequence of the transcription of our genes, expresses too much variation for what you say to be true. There is no universal third-party assurance, no legend by which to translate any person's love into any other person's language.

- Dale Coba
8) :!: :nerd: :idea: : :nerd: :shock: :lovestruck: [ :twisted: :dancing: :oops: :wink: :twisted: ] = [ :drooling: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :party:... ... :applause: :D :lovestruck: :notworthy: :rockon: ]

Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:39 am

Re: Triangular theory of love

Postby smalk » Tue Mar 17, 2015 6:59 am

dale coba wrote:I always like to take the opportunity to point out that the degree of advancement sufficient to make a fembot's programming indistinguishable from a real woman is not nearly as advanced as science fiction likes to portray. We nearly have the capacity now to model all the potential consequences to a fembot's seduction decisions, like a chess computer considers all the possible plays, and all the subsequent choices that could follow. Advance Siri-style natural language interfaces a few generations, and we'll be there.


A chess computer *does not* consider all the possible plays, as it would take enormous computational time. It can, indeed, visit many outcomes for the current situation, but in the end its proficiency comes mostly from its ability to understand the strategic gain of the intermediate stages of play. Since it is anyway possible to model every intermediate state (it's a finite game, in a relatively small domain, with a relatively small number of rules), some algorithms can be tuned to evaluate accurately a state of the match.

Do you want to program a fembot's seduction decision in this way? No problem, just model me the complete and exhaustive set of all possible intermediate state, with every possible client in every possible context.

Humans and AI reason in very different way. The difficulty for an average AI to even move a pen on a table is equiparable to the difficulty for an average human to solve a multiple integral without any calculator.

Posts: 1854
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 9:05 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Triangular theory of love

Postby dale coba » Tue Mar 17, 2015 7:40 am

Moore's Law means I'm not worried about the processing power required. We'll be lucky if Q-bits don't come along soon, and Skynet us all right up the arse. A.I. of whatever stripe is not interesting to me, insofar as it helps her balance or perceive objects more clearly. Those aren't examples of a personality making decisions.

I am thinking not about the complexity of the machine required to run the program, but the simplicity of the algorithm of possible actions. She has all the contextual clues of the scene, all the memory of her owner's past responses, the common database on-line of responses by other owners with similar tastes, and she is weighing out how he will react if she does this, then this, etc. She doesn't have to predict, she is enabling the possibility of her owner's pleasure, and any pleasure that results will do just fine. She doesn't have to be a psychic, but a skilled improvisation partner.

It's not even as hard as winning at chess. He wants to have fun, and she will quickly change her approach when she sees a better way to please him. That's more like the challenge to "win" by having fun playing at bridge, partners making bids, anticipating, and setting up opportunities. Wikipedia says computers today can play bridge as well as the champions - and I'm talking about a typical Owner (not one trying like a chess champ to out-think his fembot's advances).

Yes, the machine must be extremely sophisticated to perform its bodily and perceptual tasks. Beyond the low-level and mid-level calculations, regarding seduction strategies, she doesn't have to be remotely as smart.

- Dale Coba
8) :!: :nerd: :idea: : :nerd: :shock: :lovestruck: [ :twisted: :dancing: :oops: :wink: :twisted: ] = [ :drooling: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :party:... ... :applause: :D :lovestruck: :notworthy: :rockon: ]

Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:39 am

Re: Triangular theory of love

Postby smalk » Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:57 am

As my point was not taken,

dale coba wrote:We nearly have the capacity now to model all the potential consequences to a fembot's seduction decisions


I take that you like to think that your idea is very easy to implement, when there is enough available computational power. The reality is slightly different, though.

PreviousNext

Return to Discussion



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests