you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 week ago (1 child)

I think the core premise of that is a bit off. People already consume products that are like the human equivalent of a cat toy, a simulacra of a victim that they get some joy out of doing whatever to, but the unreality of it keeps it as something detached and distinct, and where those people are antisocial it's sourced from their socialization and material conditions rather than reinforced by something safe and unreal.

Robot bang-maids would just have a serious risk of making their consumers more broken and pathetic, becoming dependent on the chatbot powering them and probably developing chatbot psychosis from it as they retreat further and further from society. The crime in slavery is in harming a human, in reducing an actual, thinking, feeling person to the level of an object and enacting further violence and cruelty on them to control them, not in becoming emotionally dependent on a fancy roomba/fleshlight combo that gives you chatgpt psychosis.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    While there are points of comparisons we can draw if you like, I don't think think a little wicker doll or existing sex dolls or anything else are so similar to a life-sized, self-moving, reactive fake person who speaks to you that we can just say if one is fine then so is the other, though I already think existing sex dolls are probably not that good for some of their owners (people who are already particular varieties of psychologically vulnerable but clearly not being helped by this).

    For the record, I also think something similar about other slave simulacra, though this is surely worse because for many just doing daily simulated sexual abuse is literally the one and only point of having it, and for many of the rest there's someone more in line with traditional ideas of AI psychosis, of a fake partner who always agrees with you and if they don't then you change their settings so they do.

    But if we can acknowledge that the flattery robots can hurt your mental health, surely we can acknowledge that robots designed to receive sexual abuse with the same regularity and psychological untethering (of being able to dictate their responses) while being behaviorally grounded in a physical, lifelike simulacra of a victim presents cause for concern.

    I'm not talking about any crime, that should be overtly obvious, I am talking about psychological impact from being constantly conditioned via this elaborate simulated "relationship" that you get to enact with great frequency.

    Edit: as I said before, it's just observably, blatantly true that things on the internet that have much less experiential reality or concrete, behavioral reinforcement than this can, at minimum, cause unwell people to be more unwell. This is just a worse version of it that it seems much more easily could produce, among other things, even more actual physical violence than the other things already do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    My main problem with this line of reasoning is that it's largely just transposing the same logic that's used against things like BDSM or kink in general, of positioning it as something uniquely or at least especially harmful when the reality is that where it's abusive, it's abusive in the same ways and with the same or lower frequency than the equivalent vanilla relationships or scenes, that the fundamentally most harmful thing is just vanilla cishet patriarchy and even the tame and "safe" things that reinforce and feed into that.

    Like the starting point is that it's "icky" and so must be something uniquely or exceptionally harmful and then imagining how all the ways it's different must make it especially bad, when we know from other comparable examples whether this is violent or sexualized media or kink scenes or whatnot that that's not how it works.

    That's why I think the way to evaluate the potential harm is to start from the ground up and try to see materially what it's most likely to do, which is where I'm getting "it would cause addiction/dependence and probably increased isolation, while having all the hazards of extant chatbots dialed up a few more notches", and if it's going to reinforce toxic norms that's going to be more in it mimicking the dynamics of a traditional patriarchal heterosexual relationship (or a homosexual mimicry of the same, because I can 100% imagine gay men buying a femboy robot bang-maid too) rather than it coming from some more "salacious" kink place. Especially since so many people are just intensely, unwaveringly boring, and would think a robot blowjob while they eat some microwaved breakfast treat is the literal peak of their imagination and desires. They're not gonna be playing out The Story of O or the like, just some pathetic existence where their fancy roomba tells them they're a special good boy before sucking them off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 child)

    You're just talking past me. You are alleging that what I am saying is connected to reinforcing the logic of the cishet patriarchy and the stigmatizing of sexual orientations that I guess you say I at least implicitly find "icky," but you make no effort to connect what I said to this, you just described people with shitty positions that I do not have. You have not established a basis for my argument being a "transpositon".

    Edit: I want to add that I generally think BDSM practices are generally exactly the opposite here of any problem I am mentioning, because they are intensely intersubjective and require attention to consent and the perspective of your partner. The opposite is true with the sort of robots we are talking about, where one is going to some truly extreme lengths to engineer solipsistic sex and/or sexual abuse. I don't know how relevant this is to the overall point, I just want to affirm a conceptual difference rather than leave it open-ended as I did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    What? Your argument is the same as what the UK press releases about the criminalization of BDSM media say, where they paint it as something especially harmful because of it mimicking violence or slavery or whatnot and just state this as an accepted natural truth despite all evidence being to the contrary. Meanwhile, as we all know the real harm of pornography (abuse and exploitation in the industry aside) comes from the mass market vanilla cishet slop as a commodification of women's bodies aimed at incredibly boring chauvinist straight men, which is perfectly accepted and legal even though that industry really should not be tolerated the way it is (if nothing else because of the rampant abuse and exploitation in the industry we skipped over earlier).

    Like the entire "this is a safe, accessible simulacra of [violence/slavery] which is why it's bad" premise just doesn't hold water, nor does this salacious idea of chuds practicing abusing and tormenting their robot bang-maids. Like I can tell you 99% of them would just end up crying on their emotional support roomba until it cheers them up by microwaving a poptart and telling them how smart and right they are about everything. Which is bad, obviously, but it's bad in a really boring way and in way more pathetic ways than this vision of unusual and deviant cruelty people are painting in this thread.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    What? Your argument is the same as what the UK press releases about the criminalization of BDSM media say,

    I apologize, I edited in a part to explain the difference but was late in doing so

    the mass market vanilla cishet slop as a commodification of women's bodies aimed at incredibly boring chauvinist straight men,

    Which is very easy to apply to the present subject

    doesn't hold water, nor does this salacious idea of chuds practicing abusing and tormenting their robot bang-maids.

    I didn't mean some elaborate BDSM thing, I just mean straightforward eroticized r___, which is also a very prevalent aspect of the "mass market vanilla cishet slop as a commodification of women's bodies aimed at incredibly boring chauvinist straight men" that you correctly cite earlier. I can go into more detail of you really want me to, but I've been trying to spare us both that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago

    I apologize, I edited in a part to explain the difference but was late in doing so

    I think I was also unusually fast in opening the inbox there - the inbox indicator changed in front of me right as I was tabbing through so I saw the post less than a minute after it was posted and missed any edits.

    I didn't mean some elaborate BDSM thing, I just mean straightforward eroticized r___, which is also a very prevalent aspect of the "mass market vanilla cishet slop as a commodification of women's bodies aimed at incredibly boring chauvinist straight men" that you correctly cite earlier.

    You're still focusing on the supposed imitation of violence as the issue, while I'm arguing that the problem is principally that it's a pathetic recreation of like the most milquetoast basic straight guy fantasy except in the form of a roomba that gives them chatbot psychosis.

    I'll grant that we may just be using different rhetoric to describe fundamentally the same thing, although I'm still sticking with my prediction that this would be way more harmful to the person trying to do it than it would make them more dangerous towards others, except in the context of them becoming addicted to it and attacking someone who tries to get them to stop using it for some reason or another.

  • source
  • parent