[ExI] From Friendly AI to Loving AI

[Kelly Anderson]

2011/5/6 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>>… On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj
> Subject: [ExI] From Friendly AI to Loving AI
>
> On 6 May 2011 08:23, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry Spike, this email got misfiled... This is interesting to me.

> Focus on this a minute.  If someone manages to create a sex machine and the
> moral majority is squirmy about it, I ask them to show me in their sacred
> literature exactly what commandment or principle or ethical guideline is
> being violated by the whole notion.  Do let them cite the example of Onan in
> Genesis 38:8-10, I’m ready, eager even, to debate that.  Go ahead, I dare
> ya.  {8^D  Kelly, you are one who was trained in that discipline (religion
> based morality.)  Pretend you are still in that thought-space, and do
> suggest a line of argument that there is AAAAANYTHING at all wrong with
> taking care of one’s biological needs using a sexbot.  Anything.  Bible
> only, no Mormon lit please.  Be prepared; I have pondered this long and
> hard, and I find nothing, nada.  {8^D  {8-]

Religion is all about controlling your desires. There is an internal
battle that by some Islamist texts is called the inner jihad. Giving
into lust in any fashion, including daydreaming, is coming short of
the goal. The idea is to give your spiritual self complete and utter
control over your carnal self. Subject the body to the will of the
soul or inner spirit of man.

This is the argument Catholics and Mormons use against masturbation.
If you can make a compelling spiritual argument against masturbation,
then you can clearly make an argument against masturbation using
artificial means. Masturbation using a sexbot could be argued by such
a line of thinking as first degree masturbation. That is, masturbating
in the excitement of a moment is a crime of passion, but going out and
buying a sexbot requires premeditation. Premeditated crime is
generally considered to be more evil, and deserving of greater
condemnation.

Jesus taught that to look upon a woman to lust after her is adultery
in your heart. To lust after anything that is not your wife is to void
the commandment to "cleave unto her and to no other".

So Spike, while it may not make sense to you, arguments of this sort
would have great power over the minds of those inside the religious
environment. Religion is about controlling the proles. You can't go
letting them have fun with their sexbots, or they'll stop coming to
church, paying their tithes and offerings and paying attention to the
religious elite. Thou shalt have no other god before me. In fact, it
is harder to think of a more horrifying form of idol worship than
spending one's time with a sexbot. I've heard the argument that if you
like your car more than going to church, that is idol worship. So if
you want to stick with the primitive texts, then I'd have to say the
commandment against idol worship is probably the best argument in
religion against sexbots.

You can not win an argument against someone who is deep enough into
their religion. It is easy to justify just about anything from sexual
purity to suicide bombing using the arguments of religion.

> That was made nearly 40 years ago, but it was a fun romp, not a comedy but
> not really a terror drama either; rather it was thought provoking, and way
> ahead of its time.  It has so many elements we yak on about today: AGI,
> friendly evolving to unfriendly, sexbots, good kick and stomp with Yul
> Brenner doing a convincing job as a proto-Data, lots of good visuals for
> those of us who appreciate early to mid 1970s fashion.

Loved West World.

-Kelly