love robots

I think that this was a very good video. I enjoyed the music and the message it gave. There were many persona displayed as well. Some were really funny (i.e. the man with the claw). Nevertheless I give it a 5/5. The discussion after was very interesting especially when the guy said how they did try to capture the people’s different persona—kinda funny how it also corrolated with their different view.

Nevertheless, as to do with robot’s capability to love. I think they will be able to love in the sense of being attracted to another BEING. But this love will not have meaning behind it—as the humans do. This will cause a problem because when artifical things start being attracted to a certain species, then reproduction will diminish—however that won’t be a problem once human cloning becomes legal

Koi wa Mystery….

I think the best part of Love Machine was how it broached many different perspectives and views on Robotic love. It wasn’t just a philosophy documentary or a psychological one, but it contained perspectives from the highly educated PH.D to the regular church man. It was pretty comprehensive in scope so that made the whole thing more interesting. Alot of the stuff the documentary talked about dealt with modern technology so it would have been nice if it also included some stuff about robotic/mechanical love from older time periods. Although I don’t think people in the past have the opportunity to fall in love with machines as today’s robots are more lifelike than ever before, but perhaps there could have been some analogies in prior centuries. Hey you never know, Neanderthals could have totally fallen in love with fire and their stone spears. Who knows?

In my opinion the most compelling part of the film was when they discussed the problem of other minds in robots. We don’t have a test to make sure robots are conscious beings. We have to just take their word for it. I’m not sure if we’ll ever know whether or not the machines we create have a mind of their own.

As for robots falling in love or humans falling in love with robots I think humans can fall in love with robots. As Dennett said, we fall in love with stupid things. There are people who would marry their cat if given the opportunity. If robots keep the trend of becoming more and more human-like then no doubt some of us will fall for them. In regards to the concept of robots falling in love with us, we don’t know. This problem relates to the other minds problem. If we don’t know when robots are conscious then we don’t have any explanation as to whether or not they love us. Like a couple in a warped relationship we’ll just have to take their word for it.

Love Machine

The thing that got me about the movie was that it seemed to concentrate on robots as sexual aids and not really as sexual agents. The movie concentrates on a very human love experience, and I’m not sure that robots would have the same experience even if they were designed by humans.

It reminds me of the feminist criticisms leveled by Andrea Dworkin – women lack sexual agency of their own. They are trained to respond to a man’s sexual desire. I don’t think the movie touched on that beyond Delanda’s discussion on a robot developing desire of its own.

I’d be curious to see the movie touch on potential robot families – if robots and humans can fall in love, what would the possible dynamic be in family life? Especially considering how Turkle notes the interactions between humans and robots.  Using that frame I don’t think it’s “pathetic” for people to fall in love with machines – especially very convincing machines.

The Morning Musume was nice.

cool movie

Independently, I am entertained ever to find a movie or TV show which explores philosophy, sex, or the future of robotics.  So needless to say, I thought that Love Machine was a blast to watch.  I especially enjoyed the contrast between the ideas the philosophers thought were important and the ideas the sexologists did.  And the array of robots which appeared near the end of the film were very impressive, and I liked the way the film carried us from uninspiring sorts of robots up to the most human like by the end.

I thought that the most interesting question broached in the Q&A, and a topic I have been considering since the first day of the class, is the question of Is it Sex or Masturbation?  This question turns, I think, on the question of whether a robot can love.  I know that love is not a necessary condition for humans to have sex… but then again, I do believe that sex with another person can be masturbation if one has no feelings for the other.  For this reason, I think that the robot’s capacity to feel an emotional response is key in determining whether a person is having sex with the robot, or masturbating.

On that thought, Do I think robots could ever be in love?  I really liked Delanda’s response to this, where he talked about bottom-up causation.  The idea is that if we can build a physical object which acts in love without us telling it to do so, that would be the best evidence that the robot really loves. And I don’t see how this could be bad for society, so long as it is really love that is occurring and not simulated/trick love.

Love, Sex and Robots

I really enjoyed the viewing of “Love Machine” the other day.  I found the interviews with the women from the Defense for Children and all of the Sex shop people to be the most interesting.  It was nice to get the views of the people that have more a “man on the street” perspective of robots and the potential for love between robots and humans.  The women from the Defense for Children league just seemed to have a very bad perception of robot human interactions that really went beyond any real tangible reasons other than “it is wrong.”  It was also interesting that sex toy and sex shop owners really believed that we are trending towards sex objects that are as real as possible.  They really believe that there would be a market for realistic robots that can have sex with people.

I also wanted to address the criticism that the movie was more about sex or masturbation than it was about love.  I feel like this issue was addressed well enough by the movie.  Clearly, it seems that any chance for a robot that could feel love or at least be loved by humans would be a robot that is fully capable of all human interactions.  It may begin with a robot that can have sex that simulates sex with another human, but from there, someone may decide to give this robot autonomy and a personality if possible.  So, if one could not tell the difference from a robot or a human one day and then later found out after a long relationship that their partner was a robot, would they immediately give up all feelings for that robot that they believed to be human?  I personally think this would not happen.

This leads me to the question of whether robots will ever genuinely ever be able to be in love.  If autonomous robots are ever developed with a sense of morality, emotion and personality, then I do believe it possible that at the very least a robot could feel as though it is “in love.”  If this type of robot is able to be developed, than I do believe that this type of robot love would be no different than human love.  It could potentialy be a bad thing for robots to have such autonomy and emotions.  In some ways it is our emotions that lead us to irrational or harsh thinking.  Robots would likely be stronger and better than us in many ways, so adding emotions and feelings like love into the mix could make robots only grow to dislike humans.  So much autonomy could turn on us in a bad way.

Love Machine(s)

I think of the film “Love Machine” as being divisible into two parts: (1) the interviews, and (2) the no dialog sequences where there was just video of robots, or the camera panned over production lines. Whether the fact that these two aspects are so readily distinguishable is a positive or negative, I do not know. What I can do is speak to the highs and lows of each part.

(1) I particularly enjoyed the interviews with Dennett and the two women from the Defense of Childhood (or whatever it was called). The latter were subversive in the most interesting way the conservative/religious morality police can be. I particularly liked the woman who became the group’s “Technology Adviser” after having been a reporter, and deciding that technology was more dangerous than its creators let on or suspected. Dennett, I think, had the best line in the movie when he remarked that “People fall in love with a lot of stupid things…”

(2) Some of these sequences were very evocative (the Real Doll assembly plant in particular). Others dragged on and seemed unnecessary. There were three clips of people just moving various robots’ arms and bodies around (one of which was used twice) that, except being clips of robots in general, had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the film.

As for what I think about the possibility of robots being “genuinely” in love, who knows! I will make the same argument to be found in many of my posts: In a definitional sense, I don’t know what is meant by “genuinely in love” (and I doubt anyone else does). Will robots be able to walk and talk and act like they are in love? I don’t see why not. In that case, it is not the status of robots that will make some sudden, dramatic shift, but rather the status of love as one of those things reserved for humanity (oh, and whatever animals seem to be in love too…another reminder that all of this might be ill posed).

Will it be good for society when the robots appear to be falling in love? On average, I doubt it would matter. Everyone has needs that need to be satisfied, and if robots can satisfy those needs, then lucky for those people I guess. If robots can’t satisfy those needs, than people will move on. Some people want children, and more than that, they want their own children. If they can’t get that from a robot, then I doubt they will be falling head over heels for a robot. Just thinking about the procreation front, robots that can love and be loved sounds like a great idea: (1) greatly reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, (2) I suspect there would be a big increase in human/robot couple adoptions (consider all the single working people who adopt nowadays, because they want children but haven’t been able to find the right person), and (3) since the wanted pregnancies become predominantly those between people who chose a real person over a robot (and made it work), it seems like a plausible suggestion that (on the most basic level, it will be just those people who still choose people over robots, that are driving the evolution of humanity.

Love Machine, Sex, Robots, and Relationships

Love Machine gave an interesting perspective on the role, or future role, of robots in society as means of sexual or emotional artifacts. It discusses why the need for such artifacts will certainly arise with the emergence of technology. Its interesting perspective is mostly due to its juxtaposition of the “moral” views, the priest and the child specialists, with the views of the  “pioneers” of sexual technology, and problems discussed by philosophers. Although it seemed to focus more on the potential of the sexual aspects of robots and technology, it was very interesting in that it left the question of the possibility of the potential for love developing out of technology to the viewer by raising the questions.

I personally do not believe robots ever being capable of genuine love.
However, considering that they could ever be capable of genuine love, I don’t believe that it would be have a positive effect on society. If we define society as including only humans, I cannot envision any positive outcomes for society if robots one day will  genuinely being able to be in love. If robots are in love with other robots, I think it will make little difference towards human society, except that we would have to grant rights to robots. This would be necessary because if robots are genuinely able to be in love, then they must be conscious, emotional, and persons to the full extent to the word. It would be amoral in my opinion to deny rights to such beings. Now, the other case, if robots and people are ever able to genuinely fall in love, I still do not see positive outcomes. From a Darwinian standpoint, it is clear that this might be have bad consequences. It could be conceivable to assume that if robots can genuinely fall in love, some people may indeed prefer a robot partner to a human partner. I hold the belief that people fall in love because it promotes basis for reproduction and the raising of a child. Also, I agree with Dennet in his belief that a robot would not be ever able to be worthy of love, in the sense that another human would be. Robot love would seem to be a “cheap alternative” to human love. This would surely have a negative affect on society. People learn to value human-human love less, and favor  more, or settle for,  a sort of asymmetrical relationship with machines, it could have detrimental effects on the psychology of the human person.

love machine

i thought the love machine gave a good impression of the different views concerning robots and sex- not love. I can’t remember for sure, but I think it was Dennett that gave the most realistic and honest answer about love with robots- that it is likely that some pathetic people will fall into this trap, but that this is never going to be a plausible option for the majority. He and I both agree that that is a positive thing. Also, I thought the point that Dreyfus kept making about robots was interesting, that once they can perfectly act like humans, there is no reason to separate them any longer. I was also distracted by Breazel’s interaction with Kismet. It seemed like she kept trying to make sure it wasn’t bored or lonely while she was talking, even though she is aware that it doesn’t have these feelings, showing that she has an emotional attachment to it. This showed more love to me than those who used sex robots and machines, which seem like no more than high-tech vibrators.

In fact, I think that if these machines come into widespread use, it is a sign that society is moving away biological need for companionship and love, and towards a more independent society. While I don’t see this happening to the majority, I do think that it would indicate a lower emotional and loving capacity for humans rather than a higher love for robots. Whether or not this would be beneficial to society is highly subjective: I suppose it would take care of the surplus population. I don’t believe that robots will ever have the emotional capacity to fall in love with humans, so I don’t see that as changing the effect of sex with robots.

I believe that the movie was well-done, and well-rounded, although I do believe it focused more on sex than love. I thought it was worthwhile to look at the perspectives of the makers, users, proponents, opponents, and those completely bewildered by this new technological possibility. And the soundtrack was cool too.

Love Machine

I enjoyed watching Love Machine.  The interviews felt like a good flow and the music made it more enjoyable to watch, as well as sometimes being funny.

I partly agree with the criticism that the film was more about sex or masturbation than love.  But even if this is the case, I think there is a lot of ethics and philosophy involved with pleasure and technology.  I think the term “love” is so comprehensive that it is inherently difficult for a machine to encompass the full breadth of love, especially because machines are notorious for filling only narrow niches.

For me, the interaction of the builders with their machines was most significant.  One researcher interviewed claimed that building robots fulfilled a natural biological desire typically related to children.  In particular, the MIT researcher working on Kismet, Cynthia Breazeal, seemed to have a real connection to a machine.  I was surprised how she was constantly distracted by the machine during the interview: it almost felt as if it was an act to exaggerate the sociability of Kismet.  But assuming that Cynthia’s connection to Kismet was genuine, I think this relates to love in a very different way than a sex machine.

I think that when a builder feels heartache for leaving a machine, then this will be a sign of machines entering the realm of love.  Consider this excerpt from an interview with Cynthia:

 I miss Kismet — I do! What people might not understand is that when I talk about robots, it’s not just a physical robot in the lab, it’s the vision of what I see them becoming.

It’s almost embarrassing for me to talk about Kismet, because people think it’s so odd that I could have this attachment to this robot. At scientific conferences, I find it hard to quantify what you have when you interact with Kismet and what is so special about it. But the essence of that is what I am now trying to distill into Leonardo. Kismet has been retired to the M.I.T. Museum. I would rather have him stay up at the Media Lab, with me. But he’s done his job. Kismet isn’t gone; it’s just now taking the next step in its own evolution through Leonardo. NY Times interview

For me, Cynthia’s emotional connection to Kismet is an important signal in robots really becoming love machines.

Ultimately, I think the film Love Machine is important because it promotes the reality that is creeping up of robots taking emotional roles in our lives.  The film is an excellent context to explore questions such as, is Cynthia in love with a robot?

Love Machine

I’m gona be honest. I thought the couple in the film were a little wierd. They are a little too old to be that enthusiastic about sex.  I thought some of the people with Phd’s in the subject shouldnt be and that the film was geared more toward the sex than the philisophical aspect of falling in love with the robots. But i didnt watch the whole thing… i had to leave after the guy who invented the sex machine demonstrated graphically how it is to be used. What i did like about the film was the fact that we have the technology to make the machines; it is physically possible. I also didnt understand why the artist with the freddy Kruger claw had anything to do with the topic.