Gotta Love My Bots

Posted in Weekly Assignments on May 1, 2008 by wazdingo

“Love Machine,” started off slow, but quickly ran further and further down the moral implications, and technologically possibilities of the future of robotics. I don’t know about a few of the interviews and how they really should weigh into how we should progress technology. Namely, I do not believe religion should have any right to dictate what we should and shouldn’t do with technology. Just as religion is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE involved in government, it should not be involved in science. Morality is not reliant on religion, rather religion is reliant on Morality and is a parallel not a perpendicular to science and technology. As a matter of fact it is in many senses the opposite of technology. Another interview I was a bit baffled by was the artist. I understand he does erotic work and such, but his grasp of the subject at times seemed much to little to answer to the same degree as others. A few things I noticed among many interviews were two polar opposites to the questions, either intrigue and optimism, or fear and pessimism. The people I found most insiteful were the professors from various colleges. They had the most objective answers to the questions and were not as biased as many of the other interviews. As per what I believe will happen with robots and love, I do not think robots will ever be able to truly love. It is something that no amount of alternating ones and zeros can capture the true nature of. I believe love like creativity is more than just a mix of chemicals, and is a higher function of the brain that isn’t possible to break down into parts. Lust I believe robots will be able to feel, and perhaps friendship, but never the higher level mix of them. For this reason robots, where they may deserve rights when it comes to consciousness of their surroundings and themselves, shouldn’t be considered something that can get married or be any more than a tool for happiness. Yeah, people will inevitably fall in love with robots, but this isn’t even real romantic love. It would be as we love our dogs, where we share an emotional link to them and them to us, but it doesn’t have the same depth and complexity. This depth and complexity is what keeps love from being replicated. Society really does not have much to worry about when it comes to robots and love. To site a Futurama episode, I do not think we will ever have the occurrence where the human population is dwindling because people are making the active decision to steer away from people to only be intimate with robots. Similarly they will never return more than a preprogrammed link to us. The only people in the future who are going to be marrying robots are the same people who are trying to marry their dogs and homes today. It takes more than a chemical connection for love to occur. Right?

Love Robots/Robot Love

Posted in Uncategorized on May 1, 2008 by alirez6

I thought overall the movie was very entertaining. I didn’t really like the long robot/machine-making interludes, because I had no idea what was going on, I was really confused. As for the other stuff, I really liked Hans Moravec’s opening statement, ” you can build animate things from inanimate parts.” That really encompassed everything we talked about in the Emotions part of our class. The ideal example would be Kismet! I was really excited to see Kismet because it’s like a robot celebrity, but kind of disappointed too because for some reason I thought that it would have language capabilities and be able to interact with humans in a conversation. But in the video, it just seemed like it was making arbitrary faces and noises, interrupting the person it was supposed to be interacting with, having nothing to do with the input it was supposedly being provided. Indeed, one of the things robots need to be able to do to be like humans is to be able to understand and follow social guidelines.

I also was fascinated by all the Japanese robots! The computer to robot connection seemed really cool–something I would definitely use if I were away from my family and loved ones. I wasn’t sure if that was a concept or a real possibility though. Also the robot that could sense light by moving its eyeballs was really neat and freaked me out a little at how accurate it was. The robot that was having the conversation with the interviewer was by far the most advanced I’d ever seen. That was truly amazing! I love how when it was interrupted, it went back to the interviewer and asked where he was in his answer. Ha!

As for robots genuinely being able to be in love, I’m still very skeptical of that. At least, humans will probably be “in love” with robots much earlier than robots will be “in love” with humans. Even if they are in love with humans, it would be really hard to know it. I guess you could design a lot of behavioral tests, but…we know that behavior doesn’t always show what’s really going on. If they were able to love, however, I don’t think it would be bad for society; I just think society would have to eventually adjust to that. If robots become so advanced as to be lovable and be “in love,” then surely our society will be far more advanced in many other ways!  Although it would definitely suck if you had a crush on someone but they were already in love with a robot. Oh man, I could just see the talk shows now…

As long as we can legitimately keep the population going though, everything should be fine. Because if the population doesn’t renew itself, then it’s just stupid from an evolutionary perspective…no need for natural selection! We’d have purposely selected against ourselves!

Love Machines

Posted in Weekly Assignments on May 1, 2008 by mpcarino

I’ve never really noticed another person or thing’s love affect how I live my life, but the notion seems to exist that a machine falling in love with anything will somehow undermine how we as human beings experience love. Personally, this seems ridiculous to me and stems from human beings overrating the feelings of love. Don’t get me wrong, love is a very powerful and amazing feeling and governs a lot of decisions that we make, but the idea that love is something to remain unique and special to human beings is just preposterous.

The movie “Love Machine” never fully addresses the idea of whether a robot can experience love in the way humans do. Instead it seems to focus on the idea of using robots more as sexbots, in order to  bring masturbation to a higher level. This doesn’t seem all that destructive to society, for as long as the robot has no way to reciprocate the love you place on it there will always be a desire to seek out other humans. We must therefore ask ourselves whether it is even possible to have a robot that can physically “feel” love the way we do. It doesn’t seem to be that big of a problem to give a robot the capability to simulate love through physical and verbal actions. Right now we could program a robot that will always remain loyal and devoted to an individual, willing to sacrifice anything and everything for someone. If we talked of another human in this way we would no doubt come to the conclusion that they were in love, but with a robot we reach a hang-up. The problem seems to stem from personal choice.

Our fascination with love, the thrill and mystery that makes it so amazing, lies in the knowledge that this person is willingly giving themselves up. That they are making themselves vulnerable to you. If we have a suspicion that an object is reacting out of obligation rather than of choice, than we lose some of that magic. Still the prospect remains sound that maybe one day a robot could truly feel love, when it becomes autonomous and is able to learn and adapt to it’s surroundings and experiences.

love robots

Posted in Uncategorized, Weekly Assignments on May 1, 2008 by stevegal

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….

Posted in Weekly Assignments on May 1, 2008 by skazafraz

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

Posted in Uncategorized on May 1, 2008 by danima

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

Posted in Uncategorized on May 1, 2008 by derekeganonanderson

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.