What We Can Learn from Sexbots
01/13/2010 16:56
You might have heard that RoXXXy the sexbot made her black-negligee-clad debut at the Adult Entertainment Expo over the weekend. And I think somewhere, Philip K. Dick’s ghost must be feeling a little validated. This is a robot companion that can really be there for you, in matters of the flesh and, to some extent, of the mind. Is it one step towards a world where androids blend into the crowd and artificial intelligence is commonplace? Maybe. But make no mistake, this is not the Daryl Hannah “pleasure model” from Blade Runner. RoXXXy does however go far beyond being just a more lifelike version of a blow-up doll. She talks too. She can carry on simplistic cocktail conversation. And she’s a big soccer fan. Specifically, she’s a Manchester United fan. No word on whether she can dissect what happened in the big upset by Leeds the other week, but hey. She can’t move on her own, but touch sensors allow her to make appropriate responses to contact. If you touch her hand, she’ll say, “I like holding hands with you.” And okay, I will confess I fought back a mental gag reflex while reading about all that, and my feminist side feels a little grossed out by the whole thing (seriously ... think about it. If a man prefers a simpering, cliche-spewing robot he controls to a real woman? What does that say? Presumably there's an option to turn off the post-coital "hold me" response). RoXXXy appropriately became immediate fodder for late night talk, sparking snarky comments across the peanut gallery. “No thanks – I’ve seen what happens when a hot dog bun gets caught in a toaster,” quipped Jay Leno. “Someone has finally invented a sex robot. And surprisingly, it wasn’t the Japanese,” marveled Stephen Colbert. RoXXXy’s creator, Douglas Hines, has a self-confessed and highly creepy inspiration for the doll: the 9/11 attacks. So of course Colbert noted: “In the wake of 9/11, I know I was thinking, why aren’t I [expletive deleted] a robot?” But more to the point, RoXXXy is the ultimate, um, “connected device,” in more ways than one. Owners can download personality types over the Internet, thanks to a wireless-enabled laptop that plugs into her back (I think there’s a tasteless joke in there somewhere). You can make RoXXXy into Wild Wendy, Frigid Farah, S&M Susan, Mature Martha and others...plus pump up her conversation capabilities with vocabulary boosters, conversation packs and other customization software. "Sex only goes so far – then you want to be able to talk to the person," Hines said. Umm...OK. Sure. The thing is, some say that sex, and ultimately relationships, with robots will soon be just another part of the dating game. David Levy, the London author of the descriptively titled Love and Sex with Robots, predicts that consumer markets will see a flood of fully functional sexbots in the coming few years. He also says that they will be socially acceptable within 20 years, and we’ll even see the first robot-human marriage ceremony within our kids’ lifetimes. Does anyone really want that intimate of a relationship with their devices? And if so, what are the rest of us to make of it? Isn’t there a certain power differential that’s inherent in the robot-master relationship that would make hanging out with a robot-human couple a little...awkward? “Oh honey, do we have to have dinner with the Coopers again? She’s just so ... passive. And I hate the way she stares at me. And she’s so thin, it’s like she’s mocking me.” Like Rosie from the Jetsons, Dana from Star Trek, or Arnold in the Terminator films, RoXXXy and her 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 descendents might very well take an iconic place in the landscape of technology with personality, although it’s to be sure a somewhat disturbing place, if you ask me. But like Diane the voice recorder in Twin Peaks, she also is a piece of technology that interesting because she basks in the warm glow of humanity – without which she would be simply ... a doll. The kind of doll no one wants to stumble across at the neighbor’s, if you know what I mean. She is a canvas for projection, for self-exploration, for clarification, in a way. Oh, what one can learn about oneself from hanging out with RoXXXy, I wonder. And maybe it’s a good time to take a look at that intersection of machine and life. As much as we extol the virtues of the connected era, should this make us reexamine our relationship – and, err, love – of technology? Isn’t this kind of thing taking us away from connection, rather than towards? What happens when every interaction is simply a virtual one? Or, well, a wired one, perhaps more to the point? More importantly, when will I be able to download different personalities to my smartphone? And the fact that I even think that's an interesting possibility might speak to a certain...complacency. To close again with Philip K. Dick, is there a lesson here about our dependence on innovative technology that a legion of dystopic robots-take-over-the-world movies doesn't seem to have adequately communicated? Doesn't anyone remember Hal? Am I being alarmist? Why does the Motorola Droid's Sauron-like red eye in those commercials suddenly seem like cause for concern? Do smartphones dream of electric sheep? Questions to ponder, dear readers. P.S. If you'd like to donate to the Red Cross Haitian relief effort, an easy way to do that is by texting "Haiti" to 90999. A $10 donation will be added to your cell phone bill. It's easy, y'all. Give it a whirl.
User Comments !
Tara -
While on the subject of robots and simulated personalities, you might want to consider the so-called 'Simulation Argument' first professed by Oxford University professor Nick Bostrom? You can check it out here: http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html.
Bostrom presents in rather rigorous form an argument that there is an extremely high probability we are all just simulations ourselves. In other words, we're simply more advanced versions of RoXXXy. I won't get into the philosophical (or religious) connotations, but it is a very interesting line of reasoning.
Posted by: Steve Marano | January 14 2010 11:33:53
Dear Tara:
I think it great that you, a woman, posted on this.
I was at CES and missed this entirely. I think it is inevitable that male satisfaction, while never replacing a real live woman, will eventually interface thru robotic means. Doctors say that male emission daily is good for the body and keeps the "plumbing" in good order. I do not see most men having women with sex drives anywhere near that often.
Posted by: Robbie | January 14 2010 13:46:21
|
