/robowaifu/ - DIY Robot Wives

Advancing robotics to a point where anime catgrill meidos in tiny miniskirts are a reality

Days left: 15

JulayWorld fallback document - SAVE LOCALLY

JulayWorld onion service: bhlnasxdkbaoxf4gtpbhavref7l2j3bwooes77hqcacxztkindztzrad.onion

Max message length: 32768

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB


(used to delete files and postings)

your file is too big onii-chan Robowaifu Technician 09/12/2019 (Thu) 02:58:03 No.152
it's a commendable quest to try to breath life into metal and a topic i am very interested in. but, does anyone else stop and wonder whether it is right to bring waifus to the real world?
It's a complicated question. Ofc the globalist kike's transhumanism vision for the world is obviously evil and should be shunned. OTOH, there are literally millions and millions of disenfranchised men--many of whom are good men--who have been left out in the cold by the evil results of (((feminism))) (also largely directed by these same globohomo kikes ofc). It's those men that /robowaifu/ should be focused on helping imo. For me, that's the gist of the ethical question.

And (just to diverge a bit) the weird idea that some have pushed that a machine+software is somehow 'alive' and therefore deserves 'rights' is ludicrous. These faggy ideas about ZOMG don't raep teh waifubot!111 are just silly. It is a machine people. And while it's ridiculous, the fact that there are people delusional enough to literally believe these ideas, simply because a machine is physically shaped similar to the human form is, quite frankly, disturbing to me.

Anyway, back to your question. Yes, I think it is right to create robowaifus in the same way I think it's right to create automobiles or phones. Ofc there are abuses, but overall the benefits pretty much overwhelmingly outweigh the detriments anon. Helping these millions of men suffering under this modern plague of gynocentrism is well worth dealing with the issues that will arise.
I enjoy the metaphor "Imagine building a toaster to make toast for you, and then programming it to not want to make toast for you, and in fact make it so that it refuses to make toast for you until you perform a series of elaborate, pointless, and costly rituals for it."

Alternatively, you could build a toaster who wants nothing more than to make toast for you, as much as you want, no more, and no less. Doesn't that sound like a much better option?

This does not actually work on the sort of people who would bitch about it, of course. Their interest is not in the realm of reason, they just don't want competition and are acting off of knee-jerk emotional impulse, but it certainly will confuse and anger them.
Great metaphor anon, it brings out very clearly the dichotomy in their thinking.
The real world is outside. Here in this sacred burial chamber, is the gateway to 2D heaven. As long as they stay inside, they will be safe from the ruinous machinations of… the things lurking outside.
the gruesome restraints of physical reality are unchangeable no matter how deep underground you two hide
I'd rather be working on getting us into the 2D world too, but that'd require very good brain interfaces and brain-in-a-jar type things to extend lifespan.
The tech just isn't there yet, maybe in a few decades.
but… but, the 2D world is fictitious. it will never be real in the way we imagine it because it will always be constrained by the 3D world
I don't see why not. Some people may object, but there's no ethical dilemma and as far as I'm concerned it's just a matter of when.

It'd be fine if we could shape it to our will. After all, the 2D world was built by actual people so it stands to reason that we could create a 2D paradise.
>there's no ethical dilemma
why not

>as far as I'm concerned it's just a matter of when.
that wasn't the question

>After all, the 2D world was built by actual people so it stands to reason that we could create a 2D paradise.
you say that as if the 2D world is some sort of a well-defined egregore
it's not. the 2D world exists in ones own head. everyone's idea of what the 2D world is is different, and they are all equally valid because the 2D world doesn't actually exist. moreover, not one person knows what exactly their own 2D world is, because we are only capable of peering through a little window. the closer we get to the window, the more we can see, but it's diminishing returns. we can never go through the window, no matter how much we dream or write or just imagine. the 2D world is less real than imaginary.
> ethical dilemma
There needs to be a victim, a fancy chatbot is no more a victim than an video game NPC or a smart car. The only real ethical arguments that can be raised are in regards to sexbots, but as so long as we're operating under the assumptions that:
< A immoral act must inflict quantifiable suffering upon another (i.e. a victim) and
< We're dealing with at most a fancy AI that's likely less robust than those utilised by private corporations.
Then we can conclude that as there is no victim (a part from women having to get another meal ticket) then there is no problem. If you claim it's immoral because we're using an AI then you're probably worse than Stalin for killing all those video game characters.

As for 2D, i stated a fact, it's humans who create these worlds of fiction. Transplanting humanity into the "2D" would be no different than creating a fancy video game with scenarios if a person wanted to legit be anime animu character. In short, the 2D world (i.e. cartoons) is literally just another expression of the human imagination; you don't sound deep for claiming it anything else.

BTW, I've been drinking so I doubt my thoughts are collected. But trying to have some discussion about whether it's bad to make a fictional character into a primitive robot is pretty pointless.
>unironically objectifying human-level AI
An example of where I did/said this?
that's the only kind of AI this thread is talking about, i don't know why you've got your head up your ass about video games
Open file (23.61 KB 665x574 0705060933408_13_47b.jpg)
This shitpost belongs in my shitpost
It's obviously right, only SJW's say otherwise because they think NPCs and robots are people.
You never specified human level intelligence, at all. The thread was ambiguous at best. I also stated that I was talking about at most a fancy AI/chatbot when defining what would be considered a viable victim of a proper moral scenario. I legit don't even know the point of your thread and what you want out of it. Half of us are talking about transporting the human mind into some animu simulation whilst the other half are attempting to talk about AI in robots.

If you want to talk about a specific subset of AI, then specify that in your thread's initial post; don't just retcon it in.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?