Exploring the love relationship between humans and robots: maybe soul love really exists.

category:Internet
 Exploring the love relationship between humans and robots: maybe soul love really exists.


Translation / NetEase science and technology The scene of the 2017 blockbuster Hollywood blockbuster 2049, BladeRunner2049, is heartbreaking. The hero of the film, the Replicant named K, lived a dull life in the future of Losangeles. One of the highlights of his life was the very patient and compassionate partner, Joi, who shared a lot of deep emotional moments on the screen. But in the most disturbing scene of the movie, Joi was killed when he announced his love. When I first saw this scene, I could not help crying. However, there are many unusual places in Joi. She is mass production of artificial intelligence (AI) hologram, designed to be the perfect companion image. Joi learned from the interaction with K and changed her character to adapt to the latters emotions. Joi is dead because she can only exist in specific holographic launchers. When the device was destroyed, she also destroyed. Joi is not entirely an imagination in science fiction movies. Now many companies are trying to develop the real version of Joi. For example, Gatebox, a Japanese company, is selling intelligent virtual girlfriend AzumaHikari. She is a holographic AI, projected in a cylindrical tube, and it also wants to become a close companion of people. In the advertisement, we saw that AzumaHikari woke her (male) user in a deep tone, and greeted him when he came home from work. (photo note: Gatebox launched the intelligent virtual girlfriend AzumaHikari) It has provided more and more single Japanese men with a simulated marriage, and not only emotional support, but also physical pleasure. Although this is not a feature of AzumaHikari, other companies are eager to create machine lovers and sexual partners. Is this a welcome technological trend? Some critics have expressed their concerns. They claim that the relationship between humans and robots is false and illusory. It is a perceptual trick imposed by business driven companies. They also worry about how these robot mates represent human beings, especially women, and their impact on society. Contrary to the critics, I think the mainstream description of the relationship between humans and robots seems too dark and anti Utopian. We exaggerate the negative side and ignore the relationship with robots that can complement and strengthen the benefits of existing interpersonal relationships. In the silver wing killer 2049, the real meaning of the relationship between K and Joi is somewhat vague. They seem to really care about each other, but this may be an illusion. After all, Joi is born to serve the needs of K, which is asymmetrical in nature. K owns and controls Joi. Without Ks wishes, Joi will not survive. In addition, there is a third party lurking in the dark. Joi is designed and made by a company. There is no doubt that the company will record data from her interaction and update her software from time to time. This is far from the philosophical ideal of love. Philosophers emphasize that there is a need for mutual commitment in any meaningful love relationship. Not only do you have a strong emotional attachment to others, they must also have similar attachment to you. Robots may be able to express love, speak and do all the right things, but in these respects, they are not enough. As Sven Nyholm (SvenNyholm) and Lily Frank (LilyFrank), a moral philosopher at the University of Eindhoven in Holland, said, if love can be attributed to a pattern of behavior, we can hire an actor to walk through the field. But judging from conventional wisdom, this is not true love, no matter how talented the actor is. Intrinsic volatility is the key to judging whether or not the two sides are in love. In addition, even if the robot can really make a commitment to each other, it must be free to make a commitment, as the British behavioral scientist, Dylan Evans (DylanEvans) said in 2010. Evans said: although people usually want their partners to make promises and stay loyal, they want these things to be the result of continuous choices. This seems to destroy the possibility of establishing meaningful relations between humans and robots. Because robots do not choose to love you, they are programmed to love you through programming, so as to serve the business interests of their business owners. It is hard to see what their answer will be, unless they have experienced some patterns of behavior that hinted at the content, such as: they behaved as if to love us, like they were free to choose us as their partner. If robots can imitate these actions, we are not sure whether there is any reason to reject their sincere feelings. So is the fear of free choice. Of course, there is a great deal of controversy about whether human beings have freedom of choice (not just illusion). But if we need to believe that our sweetheart is free to choose our own continuing commitment, it is hard to find the reason for denial in addition to the hints of certain actions. For example, when we are sad or disappointed in them, they are obviously willing to break the promise, and we have no reason to think that this behavior imitates the limits of the ability of the robot. We put the relationship between human and robot under the label of moral behaviorism. It believes that the ultimate cognitive basic relationship of our belief lies in the detectable behavior and functional pattern of our partner, not the metaphysical truth that exists in the deeper level. For some people, moral behaviorism is a bitter pill. Although Moorhouse and Keller have clearly expressed his views, we can refute a fundamental example from a human organ system. ? Moorhouse and Keller believe that behavior patterns are enough to convince us that our human partners love us because we have no reason to doubt the sincerity of these acts. The problem with robots is that we have the reason that we have no reason to believe that the behavior of the robot can express anything, as long as we have another explanation of the way the robot is acting. In other words, 1) because robots have different development origins with human lovers, 2) because they are ultimately programmed (and controlled) by others, and these people may have ulterior motives, so there is no reason to think that you and the robot can establish a meaningful relationship. Against this background, the first point is hard to prove. Unless you think that biological organizations are more magical, or you are a firm believer in mind-bodydualism, there is no reason to suspect that a robot that is functionally and functionally equivalent to human beings cant maintain a meaningful relationship. After all, we have every reason to doubt that we are also controlled by more advanced civilizations and arranged to love each other. It may be difficult to reverse the design of our program, but it is becoming more and more true for robots, especially when they are programmed and learning rules help them to understand the response to the world. Second factors provide more reasons to doubt the meaning of the relationship between human and robot, but there are two questions that need clarification: first, if the real concern is that the robot has an undesirable motivation and may betray you at some point in the future, then we should remember the relationship between people. It is also full of similar risks. As the philosopher Alexander Naimas (AlexanderNehamas) points out in the friendship (OnFriendship), this fragile betrayal tends to make interpersonal relationships so precious. Second, if people are worried about ownership and control, we should remember that ownership and control are the fact of social construction, and that if we think it is morally appropriate, it can be changed. Human beings once owned and controlled other human beings, but we (or at least most people) finally saw the moral mistake of such behavior. In the possession and control of robots, we may see similar moral errors, especially if they are indistinguishable from the human lover in behavior. The above argument is merely a defence of the philosophical possibility of a robot lover. Obviously, in order to achieve the love of machines, we need to remove many technical and moral barriers. One major moral obstacle is how robots represent (or imitate) human beings. If you look at the robot partners now, they seem to have problems with the nature of love and the hypothesis of sexual desire. Holographic partners represent the ideal of sexism for housewives. In the world of erotic dolls and erotic robot prototypes, the situation is even worse. We see that the concept of materialization and eroticism of women is manifested or even strengthened. It worries a lot of people. For example, Sinzana Gutu, a lawyer who specializes in Internet liability in Vancouver, is worried that the erotic robot portrays women as an image of SinzianaGutiu. For users, sex robots look and feel like a real woman, she said. Sexual robots seem never to be revolting sexual partners... To answer this question, we need to first consider how symbolic practice and artifact carry meaning. The meaning they represent is a function of their content, such as their similarities (more importantly, what they are imitated by others), and the contexts that they are created, interpreted and used. When it comes to meaning, there is a complex interaction between content and context. In a context, there seems to be something offensive and defamation. In another context, the meaning may be totally different. Video and pictures describing affiliation and dominance may be derogatory in some cases (for example, when suppliers of mainstream pornography are produced and consumed), but may have more positive implications in other areas (e.g., BDSM community members or feminist pornography proponents in production and consumption). This will affect the evaluation of the token damage of the robot lover, because their content and usage context are not fixed or fixed. It is almost certain that the current appearance of robot lovers is problematic, especially in the environment where they are produced, promoted and used. Similar strategies can be adopted in the case of erotic robots. We can try to change the representation of erotic robots to include different women, men, and non - two - dollar bodies, and to follow the behavior scripts that do not strengthen or even promote negative stereotypes (preprogrammed content). We can also seek to change the process of creation and design of sex robots, and encourage more diverse voices in this process. To this end, we can refer to the active female practices in the field of sexual technology, including Cindy Gallop (CindyGallop), a website MakeLoveNotPorn, a venture capital fund for targeted tech entrepreneurs, and the founder of Stephanie Aris (StephanieAlys), a sex toy company. One of them, she has an affirmative attitude towards the role of sex robots in human sexual behavior; KateDevlin, a computer lecturer at the University of London, at the University of London, believes that sex robots can let us explore sexual behavior without being restricted by human beings. Finally, we can create a better environment for the marketing and use of erotic robots. This will require increased awareness around gender harassment and inequality, and greater sensitivity to the injury associated with this technology. We have already begun to do this, but this is undoubtedly a tough battle and more efforts. In view of these difficulties, it is very likely that we will once again call for the prohibition of production of such content, but such a review is unlikely to succeed. We have been using technology to achieve sexual stimulation and satisfaction, and we will continue to do so in the future. The debate over the consequences of robot lovers may be deadlocked. Worries about the dangers of robots often turn into worries about their consequences. If robots represent or express the attitude of aversive women, people worry that these attitudes will be strengthened in the process of interaction between users and human beings. They tend to be sexually aggressive and violent, unwilling to compromise, and may become more solitary and dislike humans. Obviously, the consequences of robot lovers will be closely related to their availability. If the results are obvious and undisputed are negative, then this will strengthen any negative social significance they may represent and provide us with sufficient reasons to prevent them from using them. If the results are obvious and undisputed positive (for example, because their use actually prevents sexual violence in the real world), then their negative social meaning will be changed, and we may have strong reasons to encourage them to use them. The problem is that we do not know which of these two possibilities is more likely to happen now. We do not have any empirical research on the impact of robot lovers, and we can only draw inferences from similar debates, such as the impact of pornography on the real world, but these debates do not provide much guidance. In my recent work, I look back on the study of the effects of pornography and find that the overall situation is not clear: some studies show that it has harmful effects, others think that there is no, and some people think that the impact is positive. Most importantly, many researchers regret the low quality and often prejudice of the current research literature. If you look at other media effects debates, such as violent video games, the situation is much the same. This is frustrating, because it shows that the debate on the consequences of robot lovers may also be equally controversial and uncertain. It is not surprising that complex social behaviours, such as sexual aggression or womens disease, may be too arbitrary, and are subject to many different contexts and individual differences. It may sound naive to assume that there is a clear, linear causal relationship between the robot lover and other interpersonal relationships, that is, the use and development of public policy can be effectively guided around it. The reality is more chaotic and not so convincing. So far, I have rebutted critics and believe that it is possible to establish a truly meaningful relationship between humans and robots, and that the characterizations and corresponding hazards of these relationships may be exaggerated. I want to take a more positive attitude to think about the possible future between human and robot partners. If we believe that human beings can build meaningful relationships with robots, then we can bring about a direct possibility. If this is correct, this means that our current commodity related to human relations is also applicable in robot relations. This may be a positive result, because it will enable us to distribute these commodities more widely. The philosopher Neil Macarthur of University of Manitoba (NeilMcArthur) especially points out that many people are excluded from the possibility of establishing a valuable sexual relationship with others. If we admit that sexual experience is part of a good life and may even have the right to have sex, this should be regarded as a problem. In addition, this problem transcends sex: people are also excluded from other related goods, such as companionship and care. It is impossible to try to find a human partner for everyone to solve the imbalance in this distribution, because it may require massive forced action, but it may be possible to achieve this goal through a robot partner. Robot partners can solve these imbalance problems by providing third party channels, because they are less destructive to human relationships, and they are not likely to be regarded as competitors. The most obvious assumption is that robot partners can help to deal with the diversity needs of desire differences and gender relations. But the same possibility is not confined to sex. The three in one relationship between humans, robots and other human beings can alleviate the tension and pressure of many relationship dimensions. Of course, whether this will happen depends on how people perceive and respond to the existence of robot lovers in intimate environments. As the The University of British Columbia economist Marina Adeshad (MarinaAdshade) points out, a reasonable result of the ubiquitous robot lover is the normalization of non monogamy, the repositioning of intimate relationships, less attention to sexual and emotional exclusiveness, and more attention to partner relationships. Planning and living together. In the next few decades, no matter how we perceive them, people will almost certainly establish relationships with more sophisticated robots. There are no inherent errors in falling in love with robots. Some forms of human and robot love can complement and enhance human relationships. At the same time, some relationships may be socially destructive. The key question is not whether we can prevent this from happening, but whether we should tolerate and encourage the relationship between people and robots. (small) source: NetEase science and technology report editor: Bai Xin _NT4464 The most obvious assumption is that robot partners can help to deal with the diversity needs of desire differences and gender relations. But the same possibility is not confined to sex. The three in one relationship between humans, robots and other human beings can alleviate the tension and pressure of many relationship dimensions. Of course, whether this will happen depends on how people perceive and respond to the existence of robot lovers in intimate environments. As the The University of British Columbia economist Marina Adeshad (MarinaAdshade) points out, a reasonable result of the ubiquitous robot lover is the normalization of non monogamy, the repositioning of intimate relationships, less attention to sexual and emotional exclusiveness, and more attention to partner relationships. Planning and living together. In the next few decades, no matter how we perceive them, people will almost certainly establish relationships with more sophisticated robots. There are no inherent errors in falling in love with robots. Some forms of human and robot love can complement and enhance human relationships. At the same time, some relationships may be socially destructive. The key question is not whether we can prevent this from happening, but whether we should tolerate and encourage the relationship between people and robots. (small)