Gynoid emotions

[DukeNukem 2417]

Quick question: How many forum members prefer gynoids with emotions over those without?

[Gorgo]

I certainly wouldn't mind them.

[Asato]

Obviously yes for emotions

[dale coba]

With emotions, but emotions as easily changed or switched off as a tv channel.

- Dale Coba

[--NightBattery--]

human like Logic over emotions i would preffer :3

[liliwinnt6]

I agree with dale coba.

[gynoneko]

With of course. But it would be possible (but not easy) to disable them.

[Brytestar]

Emotions! I do like the blank stare every now and then.

[King Snarf]

I like both. Or rather, I like emotions, and I like when the emotion program gets turned off.

[Asato]

I don't like the idea of turning them off. It seems oppressive and evil.

[DollSpace]

I don't like the idea of turning them off. It seems oppressive and evil.

I agree with this. Very much.

[dale coba]

When I was a kid, Mattel tarted up an 8-track player as 2XL - a "computer" only in that answering questions led one to switch from one track to another, encountering pre-recorded messages in what seemed similar to a conversation. The 2XL algorithms could barely fool a child, but that computer had Zero RAM.

Why do some think the Gynoid I'm thinking of must be sentient, when actually her interactions could be made most sufficient and convincingly human using nowhere near the processing power and sophistication of what some will call "true A.I." or sentient systems? Why does she have to "learn" in some way that leads to a mind and awareness of self?

My girl's "thoughts" are as shiny and meaningless as Pachinko balls, tumbling down their merry little metal paths as entertaining distractions. Deterministic systems can appear complex and intelligent.

- Dale Coba
(In my traditional Stepford way, oppressive and evil - imposing conversions on unsuspecting women since ~1970.)

[Asato]

Well just think, how would you feel if someone could turn your emotions on an off at will?

[dale coba]

Well just think, how would you feel if someone could turn your emotions on an off at will?

Unlike Data, my Gynoid is a toaster.
Mine doesn't feel at all. She has no personhood inside.

Emotions and ego are two distinct concepts.
You design your Gynoid, and you choose to engage with another being.

Mine has no mind; her Self is an illusion,
and there's no need to respect her as anything more than a beautiful appliance.

- Dale Coba

(nobody said I was the Evil and Oppressive one, but I'm not...
except for the forced transformations resulting in non-sentient robots;
that's definitely my Bad.
You know I'm Bad; I'm Bad, you know it.) (read my signature.)

[DollSpace]

Yeah, it is pretty important to note that it really doesn't matter if the robot isn't sentient. It's like a computer playing a scenario or a game, like a program, and you select that, and it changes from one emotion to another or to none at all. But once you cross into sentient territory, at least *some* of the bot's responses or feelings are her own, and to turn them on and off at will is inhumane, *especially* if the robot is aware of her emotions being taken away. It's like a taking giant leap forward in evolution suddenly being left in the dark ages. Or knowing what you're supposed to be feeling but not able to actually feel it.. Eh, I could go on and on.. it's kind of a moot point cos people who like the non-emotional type will write and read stories about that, and those that like the emotional bots will search out those stories or write their own. We had a similar question to this here: http://www.fembotcentral.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9071 . Not the same, though. And for the record, I definitely want my own emotions, dammit. ^_~

[Asato]

Personally I don't see the point of if she can't love you back

[--NightBattery--]

this is getting good...
ego...it's pretty much like the concept of Will isn't?
while emotions are behavioral reactions to stimu...sti-mu-lus hn?

[King Snarf]

I don't know if "good" is the term I'd use, but it's certainly getting spirited. We take our fantasy very seriously, I guess.

[gynoneko]

Another post brought to mind the concept of the uncanny valley. I think one thing that leads to this effect (which is simply the effect that something that looks human, but isn't quite human, freaks people out) is unnatural movement, but also unnatural behavior. I don't know if the unnatural lack of emotions would contribute to this effect, but it is possible that without some kind of natural reaction, they will just seem off to us.
Still, I think reaching a state where emotions are possible in a mechanical/digital/artificial being is possible, we will be in a very good place.

[The Egg]

But once you cross into sentient territory, at least *some* of the bot's responses or feelings are her own, and to turn them on and off at will is inhumane, *especially* if the robot is aware of her emotions being taken away.

I have to come to Dale's defense on this one. You're ascribing human characteristics to what is essentially an alien lifeform. You have no idea how a sentient machine would view itself, what it would consider acceptable behavior on the part of its operator, whether or not it would approve of having its internal mechanisms and processes controlled by another sentient entity, etc. You're making assumptions based on what are largely humanocentric and biocentric moral standings that may in fact have no philosophical or reasonable place in robot morality.

I will agree that such considerations do need to happen, but I think that many people act from a "gut feeling" on this topic rather than any presentable rationale. It's equally likely that a machine intelligence would seek out having its decisions made for it, and even enjoy it to some degree -- after all, that's what it's designed for. Rather than using nebulous ethical defenses, which dale has already shown can be neatly short-circuited with enough clever automation, one should approach this topic from the standpoint of the scientific method. Can you prove that you're sentient, and not just a complex biochemical reaction that seems to act independently? How would you prove the same for a robot? Just because it looks human doesn't mean it is, or else we'd have loads of legislation for statues and department store mannequins.

[King Snarf]

... You know you've opened the door for someone to start quoting the "Measure of a Man" episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, correct?

[The Egg]

... You know you've opened the door for someone to start quoting the "Measure of a Man" episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, correct?

Sure, but that episode, while doing quite a good job at exploring the concepts involved here, does a rather piss-poor turnabout when it comes to the resolution. The JAG officer basically throws up her hands and says "Dunno! Could go either way! Obviously we can't take Data apart since the producers would have a coronary so I rule in favor of Robots What Looks Human Is Human."

Also, over a decade later, Voyager pretty much reversed that ruling in regards to the Doctor in "Author, Author." And the Doctor is demonstrably far more human than Data! He has way better learning algorithms, real emotional responses, and even his skin is the right color*. But, since he's a hologram and thus an extension of the ship (except when using his mobile emitter**), the physicality lobbyists deem him a tricorder.

* I mean NOT GOLD, obviously. That wasn't some kind of pro-Caucasian racial comment, sheesh.

** Starfleet has a real problem with appropriating technology, don't you think? First they find Data on Omicron Theta, and Maddox tries to take him apart. Then they acquire the mobile emitter from Starling -- future technology stolen in the past! That's got to be some gross violation of the Temporal Prime Directive.***

*** Yeah, I know me some Star Trek. Not the best defense strategy on your part.

In both cases, the decision reflected not what was best for the individual artificial sentience, but what was best for the show. Data needed to be thought of as a lifeform for his role to work in context; the Doctor needed not to be. Frankly, it's lazy writing -- something I could speak volumes about in regards to Star Trek, but we'll save that for another thread.

[Asato]

You know the ruling against the Doctor was portrayed as a bad thing in that episode, right?

[The Egg]

You know the ruling against the Doctor was portrayed as a bad thing in that episode, right?

But it was made nevertheless. The Doctor is equipment; Data is a person; the sentience of the individual had bearing on neither ruling. Also, it's not like the crew of Voyager hasn't gone through their own roller coaster of convenient explanations on the topic. Janeway herself has threatened to decompile the Doctor on numerous occasions -- she even used the threat of it as a bargaining chip against the Borg! Say we were talking about a biological crewmember, say Chakotay or Neelix or whoever was carrying the vital information in their heads. "Oh, don't worry, if the Borg give us any trouble we'll just murder you!"

These are the sort of conundrums you get yourself into by humanizing what is essentially a non-human element. For some reason we have this very strong need to anthropomorphize objects and ascribe them human qualities. Sometimes that's literal, sometimes it's metaphorical (naval ships for example always being referred to by female pronouns), but the unfortunate downside to such practice is that it doesn't allow you to easily accept non-human points of view. That's been evident in Star Trek since the days of TOS, and again, it's sloppy writing for the convenience of a weekly format.

[Asato]

IIRC it was more because Data was one of the few androids around but holograms were very common and used all the time so the Federation would be more resistant to giving them rights because then they would lose an ubiquitous and useful technology they were used to controlling.