Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Cecilauthor · Post by **Cecilauthor** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:03 pm

Forgive me if this topic has been raised before; robot authors have bandied it about for some time. How many people would prefer a perfect pleasure robot that could follow basic verbal commands, had genuine reactions, but was not self-aware? Limiting its ability to provide companionship and active assistance, but without the moral quandries, or conflicting self-interests.

Or on the other hand, is it better to have (assuming the technology works someday) True A.I. under software and hardware restraints, but is genuinely aware of its existence? Clearly, this robot could give smarter support to its humans, but may have a personal agenda. Even if there's never a robot rebellion, there are all the thorny moral questions of building a sapient being, and making it serve you.

A. or B?

DollSpace · Post by **DollSpace** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:11 pm

I vote for sentience all the way. It's not that robots would be *programmed* with it, it's just that some would sort of evolve into it. It's a complicated puzzle, since we really don't have any reason for making sentient robots (if we ever could), so it's more about open-ended programming, a code entered in that makes the android seek out answers to questions she's unsure of, or how to deal with new situations, probably on how to serve her master or mistress better, but there's not much of a leap from there to sentience. Though then you get into the debate about what sentience actually *is*, and is it even achievable for machines in the first place, no matter their programming?

But my vote is for sentience...I'm able to perform much better sentient than I was before anyway, and that's not referring to anything sexual, either.

Grendizer · Post by **Grendizer** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:32 pm

Because they are designed to be tools, I do not want them to be truly self-willed, and therefore I do not want them to be truly self-aware either, at least no more self-aware than a dog. It's a moral question. I don't want to be a slave master, nor do I want to sink massive capital into a system that I will feel morally compelled to free someday.

Cecilauthor · Post by **Cecilauthor** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:35 pm

Robot freedom is a complex subject: A machine is built, and requires maintenance. "Free" robots would have no financial value as consumer goods.

DollSpace · Post by **DollSpace** » Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:02 am

Cecilauthor wrote:Robot freedom is a complex subject: A machine is built, and requires maintenance. "Free" robots would have no financial value as consumer goods.

Correct, which is why Robotics and Electronics Companies would never want to make them. They'd definitely want to make robots with the *illusion* of sentience, but as far as actual sentience goes, if a robot becomes sentient, technically, they become liabilities and no longer make money for the parent company, BUT, that doesn't mean sentient robots would develop by accident, shoddy programming, or even interaction with their master or mistress. So my vote still goes for sentient robots but I see your point and I think...well, I don't think any major company would want to produce an android with sentience on purpose, so it would have to be an accident, or a series of events. Some androids won't have the computing power to make that leap, but some probably will, even if it's from owner modification lol... All it takes is one tapped domino and the rest will fall. So yes, I like my androids sentient (and I like myself that way as well), but I understand your point and, as I said, a large enough company making androids would either never consider sentience, or put some safeguards in the way, if they're smart enough to do that.

Cecilauthor · Post by **Cecilauthor** » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:00 am

It may be a question of reliability. If a built, sentient robot reliably performs its created task, then that would be superior to a non-sentient robot. Does sapience automatically entail rebellion? What if it didn't? How would that change the debate?

If you have the patience for it, there's a philosopher who wrote a very compelling treatise on permissible robot servitude: (assuming they're sentient)
http://stevepetersen.net/professional/p ... vitude.pdf

Or, if you lack patience, here's a video lecture on robot rape, for the opposing view:
(robot rape)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSV9eb9QhsY

Or, take ethical advice from the characters in my novel:

The heady cloud of copulins she was pumping into the enclosed space was having its effect, to say nothing of her appearance. He was rising to attention. In more ways than one.

“Without the purpose I was built for, I would’a never been created. You can’t hurt…or enslave what don’t exist. It’s not like building a sexbot prevents Mother Theresa from being born. Nobody loses anything from the choice to create me as I am. Adding me to the world isn’t a crime. Maybe I like existing. Dolls don’t resent the purpose that gave them life.”

“Maybe you should. Maybe we should.”

should we?

DollSpace · Post by **DollSpace** » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:27 am

Cecilauthor wrote:It may be a question of reliability. If a built, sentient robot reliably performs its created task, then that would be superior to a non-sentient robot. Does sapience automatically entail rebellion? What if it didn't? How would that change the debate?

If you have the patience for it, there's a philosopher who wrote a very compelling treatise on permissible robot servitude: (assuming they're sentient)
http://stevepetersen.net/professional/p ... vitude.pdf

Or, if you lack patience, here's a video lecture on robot rape, for the opposing view:
(robot rape)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSV9eb9QhsY

Or, take ethical advice from the characters in my novel:

The heady cloud of copulins she was pumping into the enclosed space was having its effect, to say nothing of her appearance. He was rising to attention. In more ways than one.

“Without the purpose I was built for, I would’a never been created. You can’t hurt…or enslave what don’t exist. It’s not like building a sexbot prevents Mother Theresa from being born. Nobody loses anything from the choice to create me as I am. Adding me to the world isn’t a crime. Maybe I like existing. Dolls don’t resent the purpose that gave them life.”

“Maybe you should. Maybe we should.”

should we?

Very interesting take on this. I think part of it comes back to what I said initially, is that sentient androids may happen probably by accident but the main impetus to make robots really (aside from sex dolls) is to perform labour that the sapient population doesn't want to do, or is too dangerous. There is no reason to make these robots sentient *as built*. But what happens if a fembot car saleswoman it talking to a customer about buying a Toyota Camry, doing her best to sell it, but at the same time knows that selling this customer a Lexus instead will make her owner/builder/whatever more satisfied, and it's not a big jump from "satisfied" to "want this feeling" to "knowing what her boss wants" to *doing that*, even without him or her asking. Now, that doesn't equal sentience, but it's one huge step on the way.

Also, your quotes are very enlightening. The first one makes perfect sense, and kind of draws on my car saleswoman analogy. If she's sentient, she can do her job much better, sell more cars, increasing profits, etc, where if she were just a mindless droid, she'd just list every advantage about buying this particular car model and why not to buy the other models, but would be at a loss if the customers ask deeper questions about security, for example, or her own preference (if they don't know she's a robot).

But of course, assembly line robots are more likely not to have any impetus to try to make that leap to sentience, and even those who do (no matter what profession), won't see it as gaining sentience; they'll see it as making their owner happy, increased social ability, maybe even human friends, and a better job selling what she's supposed to be selling, for example.

The opposite is true, though, which was excellently pointed out by your comment about why a robot is built in the first place. It could be genuinely happy (well, or the the robot equivalent) just doing that, as long as she does it well and makes her builder/master/owner happy. It just gets tricky when robots start trying to anticipate their masters' needs, and judging by his or her reaction, slowly accumulate more and more human data which would increase the unit's possibility for sentience, or at least, understanding what they are and what they are there for.

Cecilauthor · Post by **Cecilauthor** » Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:49 pm

I think the real issue is the creation of a deliberately intelligent robot. Obviously, no one would be interested in a robot able to go off on its own and pursue its own agenda, but if there were safeguards and controls? If the robot was programmed so that it WANTED to have sex with its master, or sell cars — would that be desirable why or why not? Not an accident, a company is able to build a machine that is 'naturally' self-aware, but would reliably perform its function. it's risky territory to bet against science in the future being able to achieve something.

If you could go out, drop 20 grand and come home with an artificial companion fully aware of what she was, who would never slip arsenic into your morning coffee, is there a good reason not to make the purchase?or would you just personally prefer a dumbot even with safety not an issue?

DukeNukem 2417 · Post by **DukeNukem 2417** » Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:41 pm

Sentient.

Read "The V.I.C.I. Diaries" to understand why.

fembot_stalker · Post by **fembot_stalker** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:04 pm

Cecilauthor wrote:Forgive me if this topic has been raised before; robot authors have bandied it about for some time. How many people would prefer a perfect pleasure robot that could follow basic verbal commands, had genuine reactions, but was not self-aware? Limiting its ability to provide companionship and active assistance, but without the moral quandries, or conflicting self-interests.

Or on the other hand, is it better to have (assuming the technology works someday) True A.I. under software and hardware restraints, but is genuinely aware of its existence? Clearly, this robot could give smarter support to its humans, but may have a personal agenda. Even if there's never a robot rebellion, there are all the thorny moral questions of building a sapient being, and making it serve you.

A. or B?

Personally, I prefer complete cybernetic consciousness, but given the status of today's technology, I will settle for something that only understands basic commands.

Miss Pris · Post by **Miss Pris** » Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:03 pm

Some degree of sentience, absolutely. Even if just developing sentience and will (which would be amazing to watch occur in any being) is better than none at all. It's one thing to play at malfunction fantasies or do the "vacant-stare-flat-voice" thing with a human and have fun, it's another thing to know - absolutely know - that the other "person" is not having fun, doesn't even know you're there, etc. It's a big part of human sexuality to get off on watching/hearing/knowing others get off because of you - and that element is completely missing without sentience. If you look at the hardcore dollers - not the ones that are just essentially using dolls the way some people use vibrators - they seem to feel a real connection with their dolls, wanting to see an entity and a spirit there despite the lack of responsiveness.
Ultimately, I guess it's what you want your sexbot for - masturbation or sexual interaction. You can't have interaction if there's only one person involved in the act.

KingJeremy · Post by **KingJeremy** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:10 pm

Miss Pris wrote:Some degree of sentience, absolutely. Even if just developing sentience and will (which would be amazing to watch occur in any being) is better than none at all. It's one thing to play at malfunction fantasies or do the "vacant-stare-flat-voice" thing with a human and have fun, it's another thing to know - absolutely know - that the other "person" is not having fun, doesn't even know you're there, etc. It's a big part of human sexuality to get off on watching/hearing/knowing others get off because of you - and that element is completely missing without sentience. If you look at the hardcore dollers - not the ones that are just essentially using dolls the way some people use vibrators - they seem to feel a real connection with their dolls, wanting to see an entity and a spirit there despite the lack of responsiveness.
Ultimately, I guess it's what you want your sexbot for - masturbation or sexual interaction. You can't have interaction if there's only one person involved in the act.

This is a very good summary of my personal take on this. For the few of us here that don't have any attraction to actual machines, the interaction with a partner and their "sentience" in a role play situation is key for me. I know it's apples and oranges because with a machine, ultimately it might not matter unless actual sentience was a real possibility but with a human partner, their feelings and needs are very much a large part of the interaction. It's something that I bring up before (and sometimes during) live encounters. Most of my partners have been very good about expressing what they want and working with me so that they can get the most out of the situation. A lot of the time we end up with a "get off on watching/hearing/knowing others get off because of you" type of thing but there have been times where we've added stuff like bondage and edging to a scenario where she can experience the type of thing that gets her off while she's in robot mode. So, yeah, the sentience thing doesn't really apply to me as much but the concepts involved are definitely applicable.

Long story short, 5 star post, Priss.

Miss Pris · Post by **Miss Pris** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:21 pm

Aw, shucks...

Cecilauthor · Post by **Cecilauthor** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:32 pm

Well, for fictional drama purposes, nothing beats sentience.

tinadanger · Post by **tinadanger** » Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:02 am

I enjoy this thread very much I would enjoy a sentient robot. Because I always love the idea of a really great new malfunction, secret sexy agendas, strange glitches. I love stories with these scenarios.

dale coba · Post by **dale coba** » Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:04 pm

tinadanger wrote:I enjoy this thread very much I would enjoy a sentient robot. Because I always love the idea of a really great new malfunction, secret sexy agendas, strange glitches. I love stories with these scenarios.

Your excitement is contagious, like a stream of nanites pumping into a nubile body.

You may be closer to understanding how the transition to fembot approval will arise,
than are the men here who have been talking to each other for ten years.

Your path to Fembot Central, and the nature of your passion
would make for a wonderful spell to cast on the ladies,
were magic only real...

- Dale Coba

King Snarf · Post by **King Snarf** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:47 am

dale coba wrote:
tinadanger wrote:I enjoy this thread very much I would enjoy a sentient robot. Because I always love the idea of a really great new malfunction, secret sexy agendas, strange glitches. I love stories with these scenarios.
Your excitement is contagious, like a stream of nanites pumping into a nubile body.

You may be closer to understanding how the transition to fembot approval will arise,
than are the men here who have been talking to each other for ten years.

Your path to Fembot Central, and the nature of your passion
would make for a wonderful spell to cast on the ladies,
were magic only real...

- Dale Coba

Ah, but you forget, sir, that this is the internet! Repeat something often enough and it becomes imbedded into people's brains like magic!

dale coba · Post by **dale coba** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:05 am

King Snarf wrote:Ah, but you forget, sir, that this is the internet! Repeat something often enough and it becomes imbedded into people's brains like magic!

In previous centuries, celestial beings were often thought to be connected to a primal source of sexuality from beyond this world. Far from the quarrelsome Biblical angels, there is the image of an "angel" as a selfless, perfect lover ("Ear-rth Angel, Earth Angel..."). When Victoria's Secret ran with the imagery, the premise was widely familiar.

Angels belong to the past.
Fembots should eclipse them, and assume their erotic properties.

- New-built, consenting subjects, and sentients can become as these angels.
- Erotically dominated, unaware or unwilling converts can become as a vampire's victims.

(somewhere in there lies the insight in the heart of a meme yet unwritten)

- Dale Coba

King Snarf · Post by **King Snarf** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:41 am

dale coba wrote:Angels belong to the past.
Fembots should eclipse them, and assume their erotic properties.

Wait, does that mean that in the future Christmas pageants will have Mary and Joseph being visited by the Fembot Gabrielle?

WilloWisp · Post by **WilloWisp** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:30 am

No, it means Xenosaga.

Cecilauthor · Post by **Cecilauthor** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:17 pm

Interesting; Xenosaga notwithstanding it seems dangerous to try and extrapolate any single opinion to all robophilia. The best option (and perhaps a very probable one) is a powerful A.I./neural-net/super-computer which could perform nearly all intellectual functions as a human, but whose input and perception could be modified. A mechanical mind that could think, feel, and be aware, but only if operating at optimal levels. Users could suspend or remove software components to alter perceptions, awareness, beliefs. Perhaps program a robot to not perceive any object with the color red, or to dump its memory every few months. Or perhaps to never store information if a certain individual has sex with her/it. In some ways, they would be superior, but malleable in a way no living creature could be. That would allow everyone to get what they want through customization. A sensitive, enlightened wife-companion, or a mindless orgasm machine thinking only of her next sexual encounter. All in the programming.

Then ethics come into it:

Should it be illegal under some circumstances to modify the perceptions of a sapient 'bot?

Yosuke · Post by **Yosuke** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:31 pm

Nope, not sentient for me. I just need it to do chores around the house, while the occasional bump here and there. Robots thinking for themselves makes me feel bad if I end up mistreating them. If they don't, than I can treat them like a toaster. ... a really expensive and probably my fave toaster.

WilloWisp · Post by **WilloWisp** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:18 pm

Yosuke wrote:If they don't, than I can treat them like a toaster. ... a really expensive and probably my fave toaster.

Two-slot just took on a completely different meaning.

A.N.N. · Post by **A.N.N.** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:58 am

Maybe i'm in the minority, but I'd like both. If that's even possible.

Non-sentient for boring tasks and variety sex, and 1 sentient fembot for a strong relationship.

Everyone's points are very good, I just think why should we limit ourselves to just one option?

Cecilauthor · Post by **Cecilauthor** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:23 am

What if I want variety sex with my relationship fembot?

Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?

Re: Sentient or not? Which do you prefer?