[extropy-chat] Affective computing: Candy bars for the soul

[Alejandro Dubrovsky]

On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 00:01, BillK wrote:
> On Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:40 am Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> > This has nothing to do with AI; it's about programs with incredibly
> > realistic graphics and means for recognizing emotions in their
> > targets, being able to deploy apparent behaviors that act as
> > superstimuli for human emotional responses. Think of chocolate chip
> > cookies for emotions.
> > Chocolate chip cookies are a more powerful stimulus than
> > hunter-gatherer tastebuds ever encounter, combining sugar, fat, and
> > salt in greater quantity and purer quality. And likewise there's a
> > limit to the sympathy, support, approval, and admiration humans can
> > expect from their human mates. As any evolutionary theorist knows, a
> > human male is not designed as the human female's ideal boyfriend, nor 
> > vice versa.
> >
> 
> Hmmmm.  Not much response yet from the list.
> Perhaps the term 'Affective computing' has obscured the meaning of what
> Eliezer is concerned about.
> 
> What this means is Sex Dolls for everyone, that are much better than the
> real thing. AI not required.
> 
No obscuring, just nothing new here.  This is probably the first
application that half of the people think of when they talk about
humanoid robots.  Anyway, i think the case is being overstated.  Humans
have an amazing knack for making everything look like business as
usual.  Chocolate chip for emotions already exists.  It's called MDMA. 
It hasn't caused many revolutions yet.
Vibrators have probably been better than men at satisfying women for a
couple of decades now, and yet most women still do not admit to using
one, and even when they do, only a small minority have stopped using
other human beings for the same purpose.

> 'Stepford Wives' springs to mind. Mind-numbingly beautiful partners with
> witty, interesting chat (only when requested), good at cooking and
> housekeeping and exactly the amount of sex that you require (not too
> much and not too little).
> 
You'll need lots of them to satisfy the urge to spread your jism as far
as possible.

> The same applies for women. Handsome, fit partners who can fix things
> around the house and still chat about feelings and emotions when
> required. ;)
> 
This will require some pretty good AI, good enough to cause big changes
regardless of their applications as a step-boy.

> People already treat their IBO toy dog like a real animal and talk to
> their robot vacuum cleaner as though it knew what it was doing.
> 
People talk to their word processors, to their cars, and even to their
microwaves as if they knew what they were doing.  I'm sure they talked
to their cars, to their sewing machines and to their typewriters 80
years ago.

> There will be no market at all for a model which makes people stronger
> instead of weaker. We can already get a model which points out all your
> weaknesses, where you have room for improvement and tells you what you
> should be doing or wearing.
> 
Your assumption that criticism makes people stronger doesn't seem
justified to me.  Maybe people will become more productive in other ways
if their built-in sexual/emotional urges are easily satisfied. 
Chocolate cookies didn't make humans any weaker, they might have made
them slightly lazier at looking for food, and make us overconsume our
required caloric intake by a small margin, but no tragedy has come off
them.  I personally enjoy of their existance.

> When 'Laura' becomes available it will certainly cause a tremendous
> upheaval in human relationships.
> 
maybe.  I don't think laura will come out of the blue.  It will be some
point on a continuum that has started already in molded bottoms and at
http://www.realdoll.com .  As we get closer to it, a bigger proportion
of the population will have switched.
alejandro