How can a fembot act "naughty"?

[dale coba]

A simple, non-thinking fembot can be designed to look and behave like a woman,
but a few non-person personality modifications would be standard:

1) eager obedience
2) extreme horniness (when desired)
3) freedom from all sexual inhibition

How can any of her actions be naughty, as humans define naughtiness,
when none of human naughtiness would be taboo to a fembot?

If she is programmed to never do something, then she won't break rules.
That's no fun; but neither is your poorly designed fembot unintentionally becoming sentient.

We need fembots with free will emulation - programming that allows them to seemingly discard rules, if there's an opportunity to be sexy and still "safe". Everything rule-breaking feels naughty to her, because she can't understand how either the safe rules or her fake free will function.

Now that she can "break rules", what sexy rules could a fembot break?

Fembot naughtiness list:
- being discovered/revealing herself as artificial
- glitching
- altering her own or another fembot's programming
- opening panels, jacking in by wire
- lying to master
- sex/masturbation without Master's consent
- turning women into fembots without Master's consent.
- ...


Add your own!

- Dale Coba

[Spaz]

Not sure if these follow any of your criteria, but I have two more to add:
-illegal upgrades
-transferring their personality/mind to other android temporarily/permanently

[Miss Pris]

Feel free to tell me to post a new thread on this, but how are we defining the difference between free will emulation and "actual" free will (whatever that it is, and if we're defining a difference at all)? You've hit the nail at least obliquely on its head in terms of why I would want a gynoid and/or android with free will - if everything is programmed, then, as you pointed out, there are no surprises, thrills, chills, or... er... spills (difficult phrasing that...) If your fembot develops free will and/or consciousness as an unintended epiphenomenon of her programming, then almost anything that surpasses the initial programming is "naughty" (though not all of it is sexy - I don't want to come home and find my fembot eating crayons...)

[Miss Pris]

I'm assuming that Dale is talking about a machine that is programmed to simulate breakdown or bad behavior - but that is a part of her programming, and therefore she's functioning normally. My mention of consciousness/artificial intelligence will only complicate the issue, and, as you mention Kishin, make the prospect of breakdown scary instead of sexy. So, again, feel free to kick me to another thread.

[dale coba]

Would you want your fembot breaking down too?
I'm not really sure any of this is really sexually a good idea.

It's simulated, bounded, managed chaos - and I'll tell you why it's a very valid goal.

Practicality is budget - the portable AM radio
Luxury is defined by the impracticality - a huge console stereo unit with unnecessary inlaid wood on gilded chrome.

Porn lies in the certainty that the most desired outcome is assured, from the moment the video begins.
-There will be fuck-
If you believe in that promise, there need be no fear.
You know you are going to be taken well care of.

Live in the movie - a wacky, adultDizney comedy where everything almost goes wrong but then somehow accidentally works out great. The Shaggy D.A., The Million Dollar Duck, Innerspace, I don't know off the top of my head.

It's a lot of artifice, I know.
Ultimately, it's all artifice, right?

Artificial failures of artificial beings, brought to you by the programmers you trust.

- Dale Coba

[dale coba]

if everything is programmed, then, as you pointed out, there are no surprises, thrills, chills, or... er... spills (difficult phrasing that...)

I fear you give yourself too much credit, to think that these experiences wouldn't feel spontaneous. Sophisticated algorithms would be developed, Siri-feedback style. No A.I.-like mind need be involved, none even remotely requisite to produce a satisfying illusion of potential and spontaneity.

If your fembot develops free will and/or consciousness as an unintended epiphenomenon of her programming, then almost anything that surpasses the initial programming is "naughty" (though not all of it is sexy - I don't want to come home and find my fembot eating crayons...)

Yeah, that's a dangerous creature you've got there. With quantum computing on page one of the business section, I'm not sure how much farther the tech needs to progress; then on purpose, or by accident, the properties of sentience will emerge.

Test your lab's EMP-suppression system regularly.
And keep the safeties OFF.

- Dale Coba

[--NightBattery--]

--self deleting important memories for performance.
--Making suggestions (that would be very chauvinistic if it were a real woman.)
--Questioning commands
--interrupt intercourse to do programmed chores or to return home, lab or factory and explain it in a non cold logic way.

[Stephaniebot]

Of course, some of us would enjoy finding a fembot capable of turning women into fembots!

[dale coba]

Of course, some of us would enjoy finding a fembot capable of turning women into fembots!

That reminds me of a premise I've been meaning to share.
"What did I say about making new friends?"

- Dale Coba

[Stephaniebot]

Of course, some of us would enjoy finding a fembot capable of turning women into fembots!

That reminds me of a premise I've been meaning to share.
"What did I say about making new friends?"

- Dale Coba

I like it, just let me know when I can visit her!

[dale coba]

I like it, just let me know when I can visit her!

----->

My Dear, once I've got her up and running,
I'll toss you the keys, and set you loose upon the populace.


- Dale Coba

[Miss Pris]

I fear you give yourself too much credit, to think that these experiences wouldn't feel spontaneous. Sophisticated algorithms would be developed, Siri-feedback style. No A.I.-like mind need be involved, none even remotely requisite to produce a satisfying illusion of potential and spontaneity.

I don't it's credit, so much as a willingness to suspend disbelief. We can let ourselves be taken in by the illusions of things if we want to (and this is not a commentary on whether that's good or bad - why would I pay for a movie if I'm not taken in, right - much less a fembot or android?) or, we can fight it and have a right awful time, as many people do. But if we do get "real" sentience (however THAT'S defined! We humans are all confined to our own hard-wired patterns and outdated software to a certain extent, so why should we get to be "sentient" and our 'bots not?) I will certainly keep to your advice about testing the EMP (or it may not be just crayons that my fembot is destroying - hey, there's a way for her to be really naughty - burn down the house, bite me, throw a vase at my head - not at all desirable, except in the Italian model fembots... )

[dale coba]

I don't it's credit, so much as a willingness to suspend disbelief. We can let ourselves be taken in by the illusions of things if we want to (and this is not a commentary on whether that's good or bad - why would I pay for a movie if I'm not taken in, right - much less a fembot or android?) or, we can fight it and have a right awful time, as many people do.

People are social, all the way back to protohominids. We're genetically inclined to be mindful of others. I think that instinct, plus the complete illusion of her body and motion and words, will be very hard to resist.

I think fake-but-good-enough "sentience" will be developed before is-that-sentience-i-can't-tell.
I think there will be a machine good enough to totally satisfy the experience, yet so simply designed and thoroughly comprehended that you will unequivocally agree it can never be sentient.

There will just as certainly be machines invented that seem to have sentience, and in which that possibility can't be easily dismissed. I hope they come after the fake-good-enough A.I.'s get established in our culture.

Take a Pachinko machine, and cube it. Maybe it needs to go to the fourth power, to mirror the complexity of outcomes we need, to feel like we're living in "real" spontaneous events. That's the work of a few discrete neural networks, not a whole mind that learns and reflects.

But if we do get "real" sentience (however THAT'S defined! We humans are all confined to our own hard-wired patterns and outdated software to a certain extent, so why should we get to be "sentient" and our 'bots not?) I will certainly keep to your advice about testing the EMP (or it may not be just crayons that my fembot is destroying - hey, there's a way for her to be really naughty - burn down the house, bite me, throw a vase at my head - not at all desirable, except in the Italian model fembots... )

One philosophy might be, it's wrong to make a sentient machine because it's too dangerous for humanity. It could choose to replicate.

Another might say it's wrong to make one, and also wrong to let one that you made be extinguished.

so why should we get to be "sentient" and our 'bots not?

That's a knot of a sentence. Are we sentient? How can we tell if our bots are sentient the way we are?
Should we make them sentient the way we are? Is it safe, wise, or morally obligatory to treat them as humans?

This isn't a human civil rights issue; neither is it an animal rights issue.
My instinct - your way leads to Destruction.
Nanite genie won't go back in that bottle.

- Dale Coba

[Miss Pris]

Ah, but opening up a whole 'nother can o' worms - the destruction of what? Humans as we know them? What happens when we start to integrate ourselves with the machines so much that we no longer can tell the difference on many levels, or no longer make a distinction between "us" and "them?" Too pie-in-the-sci-fi-sky for now? Perhaps. But I think I'll live to see it, provided I look both ways when I cross the street. There will be many people who don't want that particularly genie in its bottle.

[dale coba]

When the genie's been loosed, when the need exists for portable E.M.P. weapons, will it be discovered that such devices are physically possible? practical? beyond regulation?

When are the doomsday survivalists going to weigh in on this topic?
"Warr-i-ors! Come out and pla-a-ay!"
If you build her, will they come to blast your bot?

Will practical E.M.P. be within reach, budget and skills, for fans of Glenn Beck?

- Dale Coba

[Hayley Anachronism]

Of course, some of us would enjoy finding a fembot capable of turning women into fembots!

Naturally. When you're a perfect fembot, naturally you want everyone else to be as perfect as you.

[dale coba]

Of course, some of us would enjoy finding a fembot capable of turning women into fembots!

Naturally. When you're a perfect fembot, naturally you want everyone else to be as perfect as you.

And each time afterwards,
of course,
your new bot will express the deepest gratitude:

Without you,
she would still likely hold the archaic notion that women shouldn't be upgraded into high-performance sex machines.

By upgrading her first, you made sure her sexual education can be so much faster, more detailed and more effective. It's a good, good thing you were there to set her straight.

- Dale Coba

[Hayley Anachronism]

I sometimes fantasize about malfunctioning in that critical way that gives me self-control back and then turn the tables on my master. Is that naughty?

[dale coba]

That would be naughty - if that's the kind of thing Master enjoys.

Otherwise such behavior might seem too much like disobedience, or evil,
either of which can be a symptom of defective hardware or easily corrupted code.

- Dale Coba

[Hayley Anachronism]

I don't know. I really like the idea of master only THINKING he/she is in control.