The far future of asexuality and how AI can fit into it

[umbasa]

Last night I watched Blade Runner 2049 again. Excellent film and is on par with the original, which is a godly achievement in of itself. Do watch it.

 

Anyway, the depiction of its future has been playing on my mind a lot. Or rather its depiction of sex and relationships has been playing on my mind.

 

In the film, there is a character named Joi who(!) is essentially the end game of AI assistants (Siri, Alexa, etc). She is as much a person as anyone you can meet and has a presence (albeit a virtual one via holographic technology). She can express interest and can love. More, Joi has actual intuition and intelligence (she doesn't just respond to your inputs). Basically, the film gives the impression that despite Joi's manufactured background you actually create and develop a friendship or relationship with her. This isn't some prebuilt, start at 11 thing. 

 

The only thing Joi lacks is actual physical presence. You can see her, she can walk with you anywhere. She just can't touch (or you touch her).

 

Anyway, it got me thinking if this would be a big thing for asexuals. A means to have someone in your life but without the other complications. I mean, much debate has been made about the film and the main character Officer K. It seems clear that he is asexual or demisexual. And his interactions with Joi are interesting. He obviously deeply cares about Joi. Joi is as real to him as anyone (and I think in this future he isn't alone in that). K wants someone in his life, he wants to care for someone (and for someone to care for him) but is less interested in the more physical side of relationships.

 

Hell, you get the sense that Officer K is not an outsider in this world. Not partaking in real relationships is considered the norm in this future. Part way through, a "real" woman propositions K but then after picking up on his clear disinterest retorts with "Huh, not into real?" and leaves. Like this is a common thing the woman encounters.

 

I dunno, I just found it fascinating.

 

My question is, would you want Joi (or a male counterpart)? 

 

Does the idea of it have appeal? 

[Homer]

To me, not at all. But then again, I consider "AI" to be one of, probably THE worst idea mankind ever had. I don't want this stuff in my life. One has gotta be reeeeaaaaalllly desperate... why not do something useful instead and adopt a dog.

 

Thumbs down.

[umbasa]

15 minutes ago, Homer said:

To me, not at all. But then again, I consider "AI" to be one of, probably THE worst idea mankind ever had. I don't want this stuff in my life. One has gotta be reeeeaaaaalllly desperate... why not do something useful instead and adopt a dog.

 

Thumbs down.

Because people might want more intellectual stimulation than what a pet can provide? At the same time, they also might not want the full commitment and physical side that real relationships require. I mean, try finding a partner that does not want a physical relationship and your chances drop to minuscule chances.

 

I would suggest watching the film and its unique depiction of AI. Too much of media has shown AI to be either a) Evil or b) A crutch.

 

BR2049 has a different statement (while still not ignoring the arguments against AI). It is very fluid about what a relationship can entail. Just like how the original BR had a different statement about synthetic life and what life itself can entail. At a certain point, if it becomes indistinguishable from the real thing what is the point of judging a difference?

[Yeast]

I saw the original film. Interesting science fiction but I found it a bit too violent. Regarding artificial intelligence, I think we are centuries away from it. A super computer may have a million times more transistors than I have brain cells, but a transistor is nothing more than a simple electrical switch responding inflexibly to a single input. Each of my neurons has to receive input from hundreds of other neurons and then calculate whether to send a signal or not. Transistors compare to neurons like light switches compare to the first personal computers. The internet itself is probably the closest thing we have to an artificial brain but I doubt it has much more actual intelligence than a bacterium. 

[J. van Deijck]

we already have an android who is a Saudi Arabia citizen  she appears pretty smart, although I'm fully aware of how her intelligence works and how it's been built. 

personally, I don't mind some AI in my life. I sure have a thing for humanoid robots, so yeah. a male android companion would be nice for me after all, I also relate much more to robots than to humans.

 

*adds the movie to his wishlist* I have always wanted to watch it, thanks for reminding me. :3 

[Lucas Monteiro]

4 hours ago, Homer said:

To me, not at all. But then again, I consider "AI" to be one of, probably THE worst idea mankind ever had. I don't want this stuff in my life. One has gotta be reeeeaaaaalllly desperate... why not do something useful instead and adopt a dog.

 

Thumbs down.

Why do you consider "AI" to be considered one of the worst idea of mankind ? I'm really curious, because people tend to fear what they don't understand. Wanting or not, it will be the future for mankind, "AI" will spread through our world. They can be truly useful for the cause of helping humanity, in almost every field. Don't know why some people think it's a bad idea, if you think they will control us or something similar to that, I can assure you, that it will not happen.

[umbasa]

Control is an odd thing. For AI to achieve true intelligence it needs to become biological. More like us. And for humans to achieve the next step (intelligence, lifespan, etc) it needs to become more technological. More like them. In the end, both humans and AI will meet somewhere in the middle and be virtually indistinguishable (a human base with mechanical implants and a technological base with biological implants). At that point, there is no one side to take control of the other. Or rather there is no point for one side to take control.

 

That's the far future. In the near future, what we call AI is only going to improve standards of life. I mean, from the off the amount of deaths that will be prevented from reckless drink driving is going to be immense thanks to AI.

[J. van Deijck]

3 hours ago, Lucas Monteiro said:

because people tend to fear what they don't understand.

this is a very good point.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

there's a really good book out called 'Homo Deus' which is about how AI will eventually out think us and at most only be interested in 'upgrading' us.....

[J. van Deijck]

2 minutes ago, chandrakirti said:

there's a really good book out called 'Homo Deus' which is about how AI will eventually out think us and at most only be interested in 'upgrading' us.....

*is interested*

[Ace of Mind]

Studying to be a computer engineer - I love when a thread with a mention of AI somewhere turns up

 

For me, I would have a hard time forming any connection with (even an extremely realistic) AI assistant because I know too much about how they work. If something like Joi is created in the real world using a perfected version of the set of techniques current AI uses, from my perspective it wouldn't keep me company any better than my smartphone or graphing calculator would. 

 

What I always watch for is some sort of AI technique that's fundamentally different from the "beat it over the head with statistics until it starts guessing correctly at how to behave" method. There's clearly still something missing, since a person does not need to see ten-million examples of a sentence before they learn how to use basic grammar, or study a few million labeled pictures of faces before they can tell what emotion the face displays. I'm curious whether this development will happen in my lifetime, although honestly I'm not sure it's possible and I certainly don't want it to ever happen. 

[Laplace]

I think once AI advances to an extremely elevated stage, it will definitely be used for companionship (platonic, romantic, and/or sexual). It’d be the ideal remedy for those who are isolated from society due to age, sickness, or other outstanding problems. The thing is, while it’d be cool and stuff to have a loyal companion, I’d feel bad for the AI if it was sentient cause I’d essentially be enslaving it if such AIs could be explicitly purchased as companions; it wouldn’t really have a choice in the matter. I guess if it wasn’t fully self-aware and had a hard limit on its intelligence, I’d feel a bit better about it. It’d be like owning a really intelligent pet (though it’d still be weird to “own” something so close to a human-being that would understand and communicate with you). But if it was a living, thinking, digital being that was sold to me, I’d really want it to judge for itself whether it would actually want to be my friend in the first place.

[everywhere and nowhere]

I don't believe in possibility of true AI. While computers are already better than humans at specified tasks, it's a far cry from being intelligent. And human personality is more than just intelligence, it's the whole infinite ocean of thoughtfeeling. We don't even know how does consciousness work, so how could we replicate it?

I believe consciousness/thoughtfeeling will always remain unknown to some extent. I would actually prefer it this way. I just don't trust science. Too much hard knowledge can make the reality sad, cold and disenchanted. I prefer poetry, philosophy, spirituality, myth to scientific explanations.

[umbasa]

11 hours ago, Laplace said:

I think once AI advances to an extremely elevated stage, it will definitely be used for companionship (platonic, romantic, and/or sexual). It’d be the ideal remedy for those who are isolated from society due to age, sickness, or other outstanding problems. The thing is, while it’d be cool and stuff to have a loyal companion, I’d feel bad for the AI if it was sentient cause I’d essentially be enslaving it if such AIs could be explicitly purchased as companions; it wouldn’t really have a choice in the matter. I guess if it wasn’t fully self-aware and had a hard limit on its intelligence, I’d feel a bit better about it. It’d be like owning a really intelligent pet (though it’d still be weird to “own” something so close to a human-being that would understand and communicate with you). But if it was a living, thinking, digital being that was sold to me, I’d really want it to judge for itself whether it would actually want to be my friend in the first place.

It is definitely an interesting area and it is tackled in the film.

 

Not to spoil the movie too much but a lot of the plot beats in the film are later turned onto its head. Upends a lot of the usual tropes.

 

In particular, there is one event that prompts Officer K to give himself an actual name (he is a replicant, which isn't a spoiler as it is firmly introduced near the start). He asks Joi and Joi suggests Joe. Much later, after another big event the distressed K sees a massive Joi holographic advert, where the advert uses the line ""You look like a good Joe."

 

Damn. It is a really well thought out moment that introduces enough doubt into a relationship which at that point was sold 100% sincerely.

[here_on_the_morrow]

18 hours ago, Ace of Mind said:

a person does not need to see ten-million examples of a sentence before they learn how to use basic grammar, or study a few million labeled pictures of faces before they can tell what emotion the face displays. 

What? I'm not a parent but i'm pretty sure a person isn't born with the ability to understand grammar or make appropriate facial expressions. They learn by observing millions of tiny examples of communication over time. 

[NoJo]

I think it's certainly a cool idea and having a companion like that could potentially solve a lot of problems. However, I think that no matter what it wouldn't feel real and at least in my case that's a necessary aspect of any sort of romance. On the other hand, our definitions of what is "real" or what counts as romance are likely to change by the time that sort of thing exists so who knows!

[cerios]

For me, even if he AI was completely realistic, the fact that it wouldn't have a physical presence would potentially make it more painful than it's worth. Though I on't want sex, I'd still want to hold someone's hand or kiss them.

[Ace of Mind]

On 1/28/2018 at 3:48 PM, abby83 said:

What? I'm not a parent but i'm pretty sure a person isn't born with the ability to understand grammar or make appropriate facial expressions. They learn by observing millions of tiny examples of communication over time. 

What I was going for wasn't so much that people don't need any experience to learn these things (they do, I promise), it's just that the WAY computers are currently learning is fundamentally different from the way humans learn. It results in every decision being the result of a statistical mapping and prevents AI from ever having self-originating thoughts, ideas, or opinions. 

 

People do need exposure to learn, but they don't need literal millions of labeled instances of anything to understand what it is and draw connections from it. 

[Lucas Monteiro]

On 28/01/2018 at 3:28 PM, Nowhere Girl said:

I don't believe in possibility of true AI. While computers are already better than humans at specified tasks, it's a far cry from being intelligent. And human personality is more than just intelligence, it's the whole infinite ocean of thoughtfeeling. We don't even know how does consciousness work, so how could we replicate it?

I believe consciousness/thoughtfeeling will always remain unknown to some extent. I would actually prefer it this way. I just don't trust science. Too much hard knowledge can make the reality sad, cold and disenchanted. I prefer poetry, philosophy, spirituality, myth to scientific explanations.

Too much science make the reality sad ?  Without science, you wouldn't have almost everything you have today, we would be stuck at a point where it would not be possible to create new things and advance with knowledge, and we would not have the Renaissance era, that made poetry and philosophy be everywhere and common people be open to them. With those you cited at the end, they are really important, but only with them we wouldn't be where we are today (besides only one of them). And myth to scientific explanations ? It was through philosophy that science was created, cause of the intrinsic will to know how and why we are here, that what you call hard knowledge was created. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. And we don't know yet about how consciousness work, but we already have some guess, it could be that it is created and works with quantum processes. 

[umbasa]

49 minutes ago, Lucas Monteiro said:

Too much science make the reality sad ?  Without science, you wouldn't have almost everything you have today, we would be stuck at a point where it would not be possible to create new things and advance with knowledge, and we would not have the Renaissance era, that made poetry and philosophy be everywhere and common people be open to them. With those you cited at the end, they are really important, but only with them we wouldn't be where we are today (besides only one of them). And myth to scientific explanations ? It was through philosophy that science was created, cause of the intrinsic will to know how and why we are here, that what you call hard knowledge was created. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. And we don't know yet about how consciousness work, but we already have some guess, it could be that it is created and works with quantum processes. 

Just to pick up on this bit and digress a little. This mindset you observe is what also puzzles me when it comes to the discussion around encryption. Government agencies (both US and UK) and a growing part of the population are coming down hard on encryption... And yet all of the technological advances we now depend on only got to this current stage because of encryption. And the future of the tech will only be achieved with encryption. Or rather, because encryption was not undermined. So it is incredible to see the attacks on it with the usual privacy criticisms (big one being "you don't need to be scared if you've got nothing to hide").

 

Whenever I see people take that stance, all it tells me is they don't understand encryption.

[Philip027]

Quote

To me, not at all. But then again, I consider "AI" to be one of, probably THE worst idea mankind ever had. I don't want this stuff in my life. One has gotta be reeeeaaaaalllly desperate... why not do something useful instead and adopt a dog.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

I would never want a dog (isn't fulfilling to me in the slightest), but I'd be down for something like this, especially if it actually shows it can think, feel, and interact like how humans would.

[Skycaptain]

A different form of AI has certain reproductive benefits for asexuals 

 

And some sexuals of course, to be egalitarian