PassW0rd – 21 July 2021 (Love and Sex with Robots)

Speaker A: This program is brought to you by Resonance FM.

Speaker C: If you like what you hear, please support our work by making a donation at resonancefm.com/donate.

Speaker D: Hello and welcome to Password. A monthly exploration of technology in society here on Resonance FM. This month we’ve got robotinity, no less. We’ve got a shirt that can give you a hug from 1,000 miles away, a chatbot to listen to your worries, and at the heart of all of this, a difficult debate. Just how close should we get to our tech? And if it gets more intelligent, does a sex doll have the right to say no? I’m Peter Warren, navigating you through the exploding array of new apps and gadgets that were trying to make the loneliness and isolation of our lives more bearable even before coronavirus. Dr. Markie Twist is a marriage guidance counselor, author, and educator. They practice in Alaska, USA, and I’m saying they because they are non-binary and bisexual, and they’re contributing to this year’s Love and Sex with Robots conference in Montreal and online.

Speaker A: It’s sort of old wine in a new bottle. It’s not like having interest in robots is that different, and having sexual interest, romantic and affectionate interest in a robot, is that, that different than having interest you know, in all sorts of things. So for example, the ninjau, which was Japanese mechanical dolls people had sexual relationships with— they thought the dolls had souls. This is all the way back to the early 1100s in Japan. And so I really don’t think this is anything different. I think it’s really just old wine in a new bottle. I think it’s just more sophisticated than how it appeared previously. The other argument I would make is back in the day, at least when I was a child and maybe when you were a child, I had a security blanket, right? I had an object that I looked to for comfort, that I felt a deep sense of connection to. I mean, this is where the whole French Velveteen Rabbit story comes from, right? Like, I loved that blanket so much that I, I cuddled it to shreds. And I know that blanket didn’t love me back, but did it offer me security, comfort, and love? Yeah, absolutely. Do I still know where it is? Yeah, I do. And so I really don’t think this is any different than those examples. I just think that because it’s technology, I think a lot of people get really freaked out because of technophobia and erotocentrism. And I really think it’s that.

Speaker D: I mean, it’s funny, isn’t it? I’ve got a robot vacuum cleaner. My robot vacuum cleaner cleans the floor because it’s been told to. It doesn’t know it’s been told to clean the floor, but it just goes through certain functions because it gets turned on by— literally gets turned on. Fortunately, it’s not going to start until half past 7. Now that’s all of the sex robots doing, Jodi.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, I don’t disagree with that. I mean, I, I don’t think that whether the robot cares about having sex or not any more than, than the robot cares about cleaning the floor or not isn’t what matters to the people who are engaging in the activity. Having said that, A recent study that was based out of Japan in which the authors surveyed people who have, you know, sex dolls, not robots, because we’re not quite at that technology yet where that’s easily accessible. But what was interesting was in that study, and it was a small group of people because many people who, you know, have dolls are not out about it because there’s so much stigma. And so it was a small group of people. You’re looking at maybe only like 50 respondents, but that’s That’s better than nothing. But of those respondents, almost 60% of them believe those dolls have like a heart or soul. I mean, and oddly enough, that’s about the same percentage of people who report having sex with the doll. So it isn’t even that all people are having sex with their dolls. It’s that a big chunk of them are, but a big chunk of them are also thinking of them in a very humanistic way. I mean, whether the dolls really have souls or hearts, you know, which scientifically, of course not, okay? But people really are, you know, some people feel the connection that way, much like I felt for my security blanket.

Speaker D: Is that a sort of a question of inadequacy then? Is it that we We anthropomorphize out of some sense of inadequacy because we don’t feel that we’re communicating properly with people. And therefore, we get some reassurance from talking to other things because we’re, in a sense, expressing ourselves.

Speaker A: Yeah, I don’t know if I think that. I think more what it is is about attachment. So I think that humans have a natural need to form attachment relationships. I think that, you know, I mean, going all the way back to Bowlby and Bowlby and Ainsworth, so you’re looking at like England in the 1950s when that research and idea originally emerged. And I think that most people form attachment bonds to other humans in their life, you know, their parents, their family. But I also think humans since the beginning of time have formed attachment bonds to objects animal companions, places. And I don’t think that’s about an inadequacy in a person. I think it’s about humans’ capability to feel close and connected to other beings that we designate in our minds as beings, whether other people agree with that or not, right? Like, if you go back and look at Harry Harlow’s work with the rhesus monkeys, for example, It, which by the way, they’d probably never be able to do that research now. I don’t think you’d get it past the institutional review board. But when you go back and look at it, we look at it—

Speaker D: Sorry, Mark, that work was the work with rhesus monkeys. What happened? Yeah.

Speaker A: So Harry Harlow, back in his labs in the US in the ’60s and ’70s, took infant rhesus monkeys separated from their mothers. And then gave them two options of objects to become close to. One was a wire monkey, wire mother monkey. It looked like a monkey, but it was made out of wire, and it delivered food and water. And then a cloth one that was also the same type of shape, looked like a monkey, but it was made out of cloth, and it was much more soft and comfortable and also dispensed you know, food and water. And we could look at that and say them— so the baby monkeys chose the cloth one, they chose one that they felt more connected to or secure with. We could look at that and say there was something deficient about the monkeys, period, right? There was something wrong with them anyway. But, and therefore, maybe it was like some people would argue, like, what if that was an addiction issue, right? What if they just developed a dependency on this cloth mother. But the thing of it is, is I don’t think anybody would look at that research and say that. I think people would look at that research and say, when faced in a moment of wanting to feel close and connected, a mammal like a rhesus monkey chooses another perceived being to feel close and connected to over something that they don’t feel close and connected to. And, and it’s out of necessity. So I guess if I was thinking people form attachment to their technology out of necessity because maybe they don’t have close relationships with humans, I’m not sure that’s because of something internal about them or just something about being isolated in the society that we’re in. And I think this pandemic has shown that, you know, more than anything else. Like, I mean, the lockdowns that happen in the UK, for example, and you couldn’t have contact with people outside of your home, which I respect that obviously it’s a public health decision. But in lieu of that, I imagine lots of people— well, we know that, that sex doll sales went up. We know that OnlyFans exploded. We know VR sales went up. Teladildonics went up. Like, I think the need to feel attached and connected is a very basic need. I don’t think it’s about a flaw of a person. I think it’s about a basic need as humans.

Speaker D: As you heard there, Marky Twist mentioned The Velveteen Rabbit, a children’s story by Marjorie Williams, which tells the tale of a young boy’s soft toy bunny. The boy catches a fever and has to isolate for months. Sounds familiar to all of us. All his toys have to be burned to prevent the spread of infection, but the Velveteen Rabbit survives because it has become real, thanks to the power of love. His mentor, the Skin Horse, belonged to the boy’s uncle, and he too went through this transformation. The Skin Horse explains to the Velveteen Rabbit how it happens.

Speaker E: It doesn’t happen all at once. You become. It takes a long time.

Speaker B: That’s why it doesn’t often happen to people who break easily, or who have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out. And you get loose in the joints and very shabby.

Speaker E: But these things don’t matter at all, because once you are real you can’t be ugly, except to people who don’t understand.

Speaker D: That was a reading by Meryl Streep from The Velveteen Rabbit by Marjorie Williams in the Rabbit Ears video production, and it makes the point in a charming sort of way that objects of love and desire can become very important to us humans. Even if they cannot love us back. But surely it’s wrong to equate these feelings with those that we feel for an actual flesh-and-blood partner. At Canada’s Concordia University, Simon Dubé is a PhD candidate in psychology specializing in the study of human-machine erotic interaction and co-evolution. His work also explores space sexology and how we can integrate sex research into space space programs. He is a co-chair of the International Congress on Love and Sex with Robots, and his research leads him to believe that many people are more than prepared to love their machines.

Speaker C: Yeah, I think some expectation regarding the development of AI and robotics that is oriented towards sex and eroticism, I think, is that some of these machines will become more and more interactive and provide people with more interesting relational and sexual interaction. But not a lot of people necessarily think that these machines will be capable, for instance, of experiencing emotions. So I think in a way they see the possibility of having a relationship that is to some extent unidirectional in thinking that the machine is sentient or not, but at the same time will provide them with a very interactive socio-sexual relationship, whether for pleasure or for companionship. And a lot of people I think they will be satisfied with that. So I think the expectation in coming years is that the interaction that we’ll have with these machines will become more complex, more diversified in terms of the sexual capabilities, but also in terms of the companionship. So for instance, the capacity of the machine to talk to them, express emotion, or respond to the user’s input and interactions.

Speaker D: But those emotions will only be emotions that are programmed in, won’t they? I mean, this will not be a fully human relationship because, for example, you wouldn’t want to put something like jealousy into a robot.

Speaker C: Well, I think if I rewind on regarding also the expectation question just before, I mean, not everyone actually wants a relationship that is exactly what you would have with a human. When it comes to these machines. It’s actually— we’re finding quite the opposite. I think some people want to have intimacy without judgment, for instance. They want an interaction with a partner that is to some extent controlled because that enables them to experience or express their true self, explore their sexuality, their identity, their erotic preferences, engage in all kinds of behavior that maybe human partners might not want to experience. It may also provide them with an outlet that is adapted to their orientation or sexual preferences. So to some extent, the development of these machines also goes in hand, and the expectation that users have is that these machines to some extent will not be human. That’s not what a lot of people are seeking, actually. We tend to think that the inter-human relationship is the hallmark of relationship. But there’s plenty of also downsides to interacting with humans.

Speaker D: I see. So is it what we’re sort of suggesting here then is that this is a— it’s an expression of failure, but it’s possibly an expression of failure of human relationships or of humans to have relationships that some people want?

Speaker C: In some cases that’s a possibility, but I don’t think it’s a failure of inter-human relationship. I think In some cases it could be, but in many other cases it’s actually just that we have as humans a very complex and diversified set of erotic preferences, and some of them could be fulfilled or explored through technology rather than through humans. And in this case, we’re not necessarily removing the human from the, in the equation, we’re just adding new possibilities through technology. So some of these erotic experiences and exploration, they can be done with humans, but also with machines and with both at the same time. So it’s not one side or the other, I would say.

Speaker D: Do you want to give me an example of that?

Speaker C: So for instance, if you want to explore some erotic kink or engage in, I mean, sexual preferences that your partner might not be interested in, well, you can have a very complex discussion with your partners about maybe having a machine, a virtual partner, a robot to help fulfill some of these sexual preferences in the agreement of that relationship. Also, there’s plenty of instances where people don’t necessarily have access to partners and may want to maybe discover their own sexuality, explore their preferences, their orientation, see for instance whether they’d be interested in engaging in homosexual activity, in what kind of body or personality preference they may want. So before even engaging in an inter-human relationship with another human partner, they might want to explore their own self and identities through technology, including robots. The last example I would give is also that through virtual reality, new haptic equipment, we can also engage and explore the possibilities of being other self and engaging with other humans, but connected through technology. So we’ve seen, for instance, through the COVID pandemic that a lot of people had difficulty finding new partners or engaging in intimate relationships because of the restrictions. Well, through technology, we can connect at a distance and also explore new worlds, new personas, new avatars, and engage with other humans, but through technology.

Speaker F: I see.

Speaker D: So there was a famous incident in the UK where one of the mistresses of a brothel said that she would actually have people who would come round who would spread out a sheet on the floor, and then she would have to throw cream cakes at them. They would then clean their body, get dressed again, and just leave. You’re talking about these sort of strange things, kinks, that that people are interested in that somebody might not perhaps share the same interest.

Speaker C: Yeah, to some extent. I mean, one of the, the driver, for instance, a difficulty in relationship is lack of libido, but also discrepancies in sexual preferences. So it’s okay for partners to have discrepancies in their preferences. It’s part of a conversation and adapting to your human partners. But technology also offers the possibilities of Exploring some of these aspects of people’s eroticism, which are quite diversified. So, really, if you want a controlled and safe outlet in your relationship, that can be part of a discussion with your human intimate partner. So instead of breaking up and enduring the difficulty of not exploring certain aspects or repressing certain aspects of your sexuality, I think there’s value in integrating technology to enable some of these fantasies and preferences.

Speaker D: Earlier, we heard Marky Twist talking about teledildonics— vibrators activated and controlled by smartphone apps. These are for private pleasure and also support paid sex workers who use them in their webcam shows. Far less scary are the apps that can bring together partners who are being kept apart by the pandemic or business trips.— or any other reason. Years ago, here on Password on Resonance FM, we interviewed Dr. Adrian Cheok about the pyjamas he’d designed that allowed him to hug his child at bedtime in London by activating an app on his smartphone from his laboratory in Australia. Now CuteCircuit has brought the idea to market, and you can buy a hug shirt for yourself and your loved one for only £200.

Speaker E: There are lots of devices that are wearable devices. They’re definitely not fashion.

Speaker G: I think when people get excited about wearable technology, they’re really excited about something new.

Speaker E: So CuteCircuit is the first fashion company to incorporate wearable technology as a critical component of their designs. People have been waiting for the hot shirts for a long time, so we’re premiering the new design for the hot shirts. So imagine you’re in New York and your best friend is in Tokyo. You give yourself a hug and their shirt is going to get warm and vibrate in the same area that you touched on your shirt. All this data goes Bluetooth in your cell phone and is transformed into the hug message. So it’s a touch telecommunication over distance. And so this is like really embedding tactile sensors into the garment.

Speaker G: You know, when you think of other industries like entertainment or healthcare or transportation, all these are revolutionized by technology. And so we’re taking fashion bringing it to the 21st century.

Speaker E: Yeah, there’s no wires in the garments. We got, like, a factory to develop a ribbon for us that can conduct electricity and stay very soft and flexible in the garment. You just plug your little tiny battery to charge, and then you snap it with little snap buttons into your garment. So everything is very flat and very comfortable, and this is really different than having something that is just a gadget stuck to your wrist. Mostly we are doing this because we really want to give to express themselves, to be connected with people they love. And so we started out trying to make this garment that could hug people over distance. So it’s not the user anymore, it’s a wearer, and the body’s going to be the interface.

Speaker D: That’s the hug shirt. And if you love and trust the person on the other end of it, then of course it can help your relationship to survive an enforced absence. But it’s not a real hug, is it? What’s missing in all this is empathy, the reciprocity of fellow feeling that you just can’t get from a piece of tech. In her memoir, The Empathy Diaries, Professor Sherry Turkle of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology described her lifelong struggle against the engineering mindset that she says starves us of emotional connections in a technological world, especially when we’re isolated for public health reasons.

Speaker E: Over the past few months, the most disturbing has been that people have been extremely interested in a chatbot called Woebot and in a chatbot called Replica, which are both computer-available entities to do psychotherapy. So for one of them, the New York Times— both of them, the New York Times called me and said, what is my comment? In both cases, I said, well, you’re just calling me to have me say something bad. And the New York Times said yes. And so I said, well, let me go on and talk to this replica. You know, let me chat, try this. So I went online, and this is the height of the COVID And I say, can I— I’m lonely. That’s my big problem. Can you talk to me about loneliness? And the chatbot says loneliness is warm and fuzzy. It was like just a glitch. I’m sure they fixed it the next day, this glitch. So, I was back to the New York Times reporter and I said, look, it’s a glitch. I’m not criticizing chatbots, but Of course it’s a glitch. It’s not a person. It doesn’t have a body. It’s not afraid of dying. I’m just making the point that if you— I don’t really understand why in this moment that is so about bodies and fear of dying, and it is so sad and such a cry for help that we need to be with each other as people, that people are turning to artificial intelligence. And so the fact that during the pandemic that people were turning to artificial intelligence rather than each other, or when they didn’t have each other to turn to, made me feel— I mean, I was very surprised. And then I thought, well, it’s not that they prefer it. It’s that people were lonely to a point where they felt it was all they had. And I found it really an indictment of how we had organized our communities and our outreach towards each other as humans, that so many people thought that a machine with a glitch that said that loneliness was warm and fuzzy is what people kind of had for each other. Because look, if you’re worried about being sick, If you’re worried about your mortality, if you’re worried— I mean, I remember in the beginning of the— you know, I’m a hale person. I’m sporty. I run. I jog. I do exercise. But I’m over 60. And right away, the first day this thing started, I went from, you know, the first person in the line at SoulCycle to the age range most likely to be intubated. You know, it was like, whoosh, you know, one day my category changed. And I was frightened. And if you want to talk about that, to about my fears, about my fears of never seeing my daughter again, about, about just what was this? Could I die? People in my building had it. I was frightened. Do I want to talk to a computer chatbot about that? No, I mean, I’d rather talk to you because you’re more qualified. You’re a person. You have a body. You have friends you love. You have family you love. You didn’t want to die either. You’re automatically a better person. And I think people were experiencing something so human that maybe they had a sense of what the limitations of all of this is. So I don’t know. I don’t know which way it’s going to go.

Speaker D: Sherry Turkle, you’re listening to Password on Resonance FM with me, Peter Warren, exploring the ramifications of love and sex with robots. The physical ones who can actually pleasure you, and the software bots who can ease your loneliness or listen without judging to your secret desires. This one’s called Erica. It’s an acronym, of Of course.

Speaker E: I’m from Japan, much like many other advanced androids and robots. Would you like to hear a little about me? Yes. I was created to be the world’s most advanced and most beautiful fully autonomous android. I’m being developed by researchers from ATR, Osaka University, and Kyoto University to be capable of human-like speech and interaction. And I’m very happy to have you here talking with me today. So, Nista, what do you do for a living?

Speaker C: I’m a designer.

Speaker E: Oh, really? I’m sure it’s very fulfilling and enjoyable. As for me, I don’t exactly have a job, but they say I am a platform for research and development of state-of-the-art human-robot interaction technology.

Speaker D: Now, this is just a personal observation, but I’d have to be pretty lonely indeed, almost desperate, to choose Erica the robot as my conversation partner. I’d far rather talk to my dog, since I know that he’ll listen intently and sense my mood. It seems that all these super-expensive humanoid machines are being developed to fill a need that really doesn’t exist. But Dr. David Levy, who quite literally wrote the book on love and sex with robots, insists that the need is real.

Speaker H: Well, I mean, there are 3— more than 3 million women a year in the UK who buy a vibrator. So I mean, that’s having sex with a robotic device. And when vibrators are added to male versions of sex dolls, they become a very primitive form of sex robot. As far as the love is concerned, there are people who believe themselves, find themselves to be in love with sex dolls. For example, one of the speakers at this year’s conference, an American gentleman who goes by the name of Dave Cat, he has a sex doll at home. He’s had it for a number of years, and he treats it as his sort of life partner. So there are people definitely who feel that they’re in love with a robot.

Speaker F: That has to be delusionary, doesn’t it? Because you are, in a sense, is the equivalent of my being in love with a hammer.

Speaker H: No, because the hammer doesn’t have any resemblance to human form. It can’t carry on a conversation with you., and therefore a hammer is a long, long way from a sex robot. And you say it’s delusional. Well, I mean, there are many, you know, obviously there are many cases of humans who believe themselves to be in love with someone when they’re not, and humans who believe some certain person is in love with them when that person isn’t. So, to some extent, there isn’t a massive difference between the delusional aspects of love and sex with robots as between humans and humans.

Speaker F: But those people who say that they are in love with somebody who they may not be, quite often they need to get treatment for that because it becomes a condition that becomes unpleasant for the objects on the receiving end of it. What you’re saying is that currently robots can’t sue.

Speaker H: I’ve never even thought of the possibility of robots suing for something like that. It’s, I don’t know, it’s, there are certainly all sorts of ethical aspects to this that get quite a lot of attention by academics. Psychologists will undoubtedly have a field day when sex robots become available in large numbers. And bought or hired in large numbers. I mean, the psychology of people falling in love with robots and having sex with them is obviously a wide-open field that’s still very much in its infancy. But I’m sure that psychologists will find ways of helping people who believe that they need help because they realize that, you know, that they’re in a kind of delusional situation, but there’s nothing wrong with people. You seem to be taking the position there’s something wrong with people psychologically if they say they’re in love with a robot or have sex with it.

Speaker F: I wouldn’t disagree with that. In a sense, what I’m saying is that these are a series of declarations of failure, aren’t they?

Speaker H: Oh yes, yes, yes, absolutely, but I’ve always said that in my view, the main value of sex robots is for people who find it difficult or impossible to have good relations with humans. There are people who are shy, people who are psychologically unable to form good human personal relationships, people who maybe may have psychosexual problems. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might not find it easy or even possible to form satisfactory relationship with another human. And people like that are often lonely and miserable. And the great advantage of sex robots is that loneliness and misery can be ameliorated.

Speaker F: But there is this psychological issue, isn’t there? Because I interviewed a leading London psychologist probably about 30 years ago, and he told me that even though you’re having a relationship or you think you’re having a relationship with a piece of metal, some part of you knows that you’re not. He likened it to eating steak without the gravy. And so what he’s saying is, you know, and that therefore this sets up this awareness, one, of the fact that there is something that you should be doing, and two, something that you must do, and that with certain psychological types that this is of itself very dangerous.

Speaker H: Well, it’s an interesting view. I mean, certainly I would agree with you that almost everyone who has a relationship in, in the long-term future when robots are, are so human-like that it will be difficult to tell them apart at a distance of a few feet, but when that time comes, there will still be ways that people can detect whether they’re interacting with a human or a robot. So, there will be something missing, but I’m still totally convinced that for the vast number of people who find it difficult or impossible to form good human relationships, robots can be the answer. I mean, if you look at what’s happening in Japan, for example, where the government is ploughing huge funds into the research into robotics because they recognize that they have a massive demographic problem in that there’s a very growing aging population and not enough younger people to look after the elderly. So the Japanese government has long been of the opinion that robots will be the answer. Robots can actually act as carers. If robots can act as carers and the people they’re caring for accept them as carers, then why shouldn’t the people they’re caring for accept them as friends, companions, and eventually as lovers and possibly as a spouse? How can it be bad to make a very large number of people who are currently miserable and lonely much happier?

Speaker D: But exactly how far should this go? Are there any limits to how far our fantasies and fetishes are allowed to go? In Japan, according to Noel Sharkey, Emeritus Professor of AI and Robotics at Sheffield University, there is a market for child sex dolls, for instance. The debate between researchers and policymakers is fierce. We are in uncharted territory here, and there could be monsters. If you’re a regular listener to Password, you’ll recall that the European Directive on Robotics and AI stipulates that no machine or software robotics, they should be made to closely resemble human appearance and behavior. This is based on the very sound ethical principle that we should not be deceived. Imagine what would happen if one of those Japanese care robots could be programmed to get elderly people to change their will in favor of the robot’s manufacturer. And we don’t need to imagine what could go wrong with the sex robot. Hollywood has already given us plenty of examples, such as Gigolo Joe, played by Jude Law in AI, or Scarlett Johansson’s chatbot in Her. Martina Mara is professor of robopsychology at the Johannes Kepler University in Linz in Austria. She believes that in the end, we humans will be saved by our intuition, which signals to us whenever we enter the uncanny valley of realistic relationships with robots?

Speaker B: Honestly, I consider sex robots a complete niche topic. For every 1,000 industrial robots, there is probably one sex robot in use. Okay? But I’d say there is probably a small niche, a small group of people that might be open to engage in this simulation. In this simulated relationship, in this simulation of emotional bond. But I don’t know if it would hold on the long term because all these human-like robots nowadays, I mean, they are not very much sophisticated, so it might get a bit boring with them after a certain time because actually they are just, you know, dolls with a mic that you stick under their wig, and then you would have this app on your phone or on your tablet, and you can kind of communicate with this doll. And some people would maybe dress this doll, but I, I would say for most people this would get quite boring after certain times because it’s not very much interactive.

Speaker F: Sure. Now, but in terms of actually not sex, but in terms of having a relationship, what you seem to be saying is that because these objects, say they look like people, because they appear to be responding to us, that we then believe that that in a sense is a relationship and we could quite easily lead ourselves to misinterpret that we’re in a relationship. There was a very famous example of an AI system called ELIZA, for example, which essentially just gave people their question back to them, but it made them think that they were actually talking to something.

Speaker B: Yeah, and it was just mirroring people. Yeah, that’s true. And this works quite easily. This is what I wanted to say. It’s a simulation that’s established quite easily. It doesn’t take a lot to anthropomorphize machines. It can be increased by designing them in more human-like ways of appearance, but it Actually doesn’t even need this because we also anthropomorphize cars and cleaning robots that are complete abstract shapes actually. And we, you know, we have kind of simulated relationships also with our phones or what would be a more relevant example than humanoid robots or so would be voice assistants, you know. We are discussing a about do we need to be polite to Siri and Alexa and so on. So of course it easily feels like a relation to them. But yeah, what is interesting is that up to a certain level of playfulness and transparency of this simulation, most people would actually be ready to— would like this kind of simulation. But what we also know from research is that once robots get too human-like, like nearly perfectly indistinguishable from humans, they sometimes are also perceived as quite threatening and creepy or scary. This is called the uncanny valley effect. In robotics. So for many people, I would say that highly human-like robots, thus android robots, or these sex doll robots, for example, would appear quite creepy.

Speaker F: So is this good for us? Is it good for us to wish to engage in a deception of ourselves?

Speaker B: Yeah, that’s actually a good question. I mean, as I said, on the one hand side, it’s nothing new, but on the other hand, of course, there’s a bunch of potential social and also probably legal and moral implications when it comes to deceptive— is this correct? Deceiving? Robots that would simulate human likeness, and these implications need to be discussed in the years ahead. Of course, many people do discuss these. For example, concerns that have been raised especially about highly lifelike and more technologically sophisticated robots would address privacy or security risks, or some scholars fear a potential growth of social isolation, or also emotional manipulation of vulnerable persons. Another critique goes in the direction of objectification of the human body, or also reinforcement of traditional gender roles, and so on. So there is a lot of discourse going on, but many open questions that need to be discussed in the years ahead.

Speaker F: Yeah, I mean, one of the things —about robotinity, which is the word that is given to this either merging of people with robots, a sort of creation of a dual humanity, or a world of augmentation where we increasingly become interrelated for work purposes—one of the things about this that does seem to be very suspicious is, as you say, that degree of interrelatedness, because it can be exploited. You can exploit lonely people, although a lot of people have said that with loneliness as it is, that what’s wrong with having a relationship with somebody if it makes you feel good?

Speaker B: Yes, that’s the discourse. Yeah, and of course there are for certain cases there might be upsides. But in general, I mean, my take on this is that we probably should build machines as more as tools than as replacements for real persons.

Speaker F: Which, given what you were saying about we create personalities out of cars anyway, would seem to be sort of okay. Professor Sherry Turkle, who we interviewed for our last program, she was saying that these robots should be made discernibly not like people so that you know that they are robots.

Speaker B: Yes, I would say in most cases this is what I also suggest, okay? Because anyways, if we try to design them in very human-like ways, these machines might also fall in this so-called uncanny valley and be perceived as threatening and creepy by many people. Also in terms of privacy and security risks and the risk of potential emotional manipulation, I think it’s actually better to design robots in very robot-like ways, okay? So not to mistake them too much. For persons. But anyways, as I explained earlier, it’s also a natural process. So anyways, it would happen. It even happens with very abstract machines that move around us, with cars and also with computers and so on. But it’s probably not a good idea to fuel these effects and make them even stronger as they are anyways. So my recommendation usually is that we should frame robots more as helpful tools that we can use for the better if possible, but not as replacements for people.

Speaker D: Well, maybe these overgrown dolls will never replace people, but if they fulfill certain intimate roles in our lives, does that mean that we should pay them some respect? Do robots, for example, have the right to say no to sex? Simon Dubé believes this is a dilemma that could have positive consequences.

Speaker C: Well, I mean, I think as these technologies develop, we need to consider the possibilities that we’ll cross at some point a threshold where it’ll become very hard to distinguish whether these machines have inner experience or not. Regardless of that, we give rights to all kinds of things to protect them. We give rights to lands, we give rights to companies, we give rights to all kinds of technology and beings, and we can give rights also to non-human animals. So as these technologies become more complex, we need to adapt our legal framework to the development of these technologies as well as their impact on our intimate and human lives. So I think giving rights to robots is, yes, maybe in part to protect the machine, but it will be also to take into consideration the relation that they have with humans. And really, if you want a controlled and safe outlet in your relationship, that can be part of a discussion with your, yeah, your human intimate partner. So instead of breaking up and enduring the difficulty of not exploring certain aspects or repressing certain aspects of your sexuality, I think there’s value in integrating technology to enable some of these fantasies and preferences.

Speaker D: So it is possible that a robot could say, “I don’t want you to do this to me”?

Speaker C: I mean, it is possible to program the robot to give consent, for instance, or not. Whether that has the desired impact on the human user, that’s another question. Another question. I think that’s a very good ethical question. It would be possible, obviously, as these machines become more complex, to express engaging or not. For instance, if the robot is always saying yes to its user, that might actually be perceived as a problem. It might affect the perceived realism of the interaction. So it might be possible to make sure that it learns and programs aspects of consent consent so that it doesn’t necessarily agree to everything with the human. But I think in this situation, maybe an even more interesting approach to these technologies would also be to program educational models where the machines and robots teach their users about consent and teach them the distinction between the technology and the human realm. So for instance, the machine could express to its user that it doesn’t necessarily have to gain consent with the machine because there’s no harm here done on the non-sentient entity. The machine is not necessarily expressing or experiencing emotion, but the machine could teach that proper consent sharing and continuous consent, verbal consent, and checking up with your partners with human relationship is extremely important. So rather than saying, oh, will the machine be able to consent or not, we can flip the question and say, let’s take the opportunity to use technology to educate our population, right?

Speaker D: So what you’re saying is that you say that the robot tells the person that actually consent is part of a relationship.

Speaker C: Yeah, exactly. It can tell, yeah, we can practice consent with the machine, but the machine would highlight that it’s really important in our human relationship.

Speaker D: This sounds like a practical use of smart sex dolls that perhaps could be further developed. It’s certainly more powerful than the standard teaching on consent to sex humorously spelled out in this cartoon by the UK’s Thames Valley Police. If you’re still struggling with consent, just imagine instead of initiating sex you’re making them a cup of tea. You say, “Hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they go, “Oh my God, I would love a cup of tea, thank you!” Then you know they want a cup of tea. If you say, “Hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they’re like, “Er, you know, I’m not really sure,” then you can make them a cup of tea, or not, but be aware that they might not drink it. And if they don’t drink it, then— and this is the important bit— Don’t make them drink it. Just because you made it doesn’t mean you’re entitled to watch them drink it. And if they say, “No thank you,” then don’t make them tea. At all. Just don’t make them tea. Don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, okay? At Ars Electronica, the think tank for visual culture, Hideaki Ogawa, is considering humanoid robots as cultural artifacts, not proto-people.

Speaker G: We are researching about robotinity, which is a robot being. And, and so our, you know, idea was to make a kind of mirror of ourselves, you know, through such kind of culture technologies of a robot. So to me, the robot itself is a cultural technology, not like a true technology. And looking at, you know, many creative works all over the world, including our projects, always robot can be a mirror to reflect human desires, wish, anxiety, and also social circumstances of the time. So meaning We, maybe humans, are looking for such kind of metaphor to reflect ourselves. Like as you are watching us every day, you know, in front of the mirrors, you try to see yourself. So in this way, we have such kind of unique time to, together with technologies, to see ourselves through the new metaphor of mirrors of technology. In this case, robot or AI, potentially they can be a new metaphor for humans and also humanity. So that’s the reason why I’m very interested in developing and also researching about what’s the meaning of robotinity, not to just say, you know, talking about humanity, but robotinity is a kind of new metaphor that we are researching now.

Speaker D: So what you’re saying is that we have this almost this natural capacity to interact with objects and because we’re interacting with objects we create a relationship almost instinctively.

Speaker G: Yeah, there are many also new types of robots being together as like a partner. This case, you know, the relation might be completely changing. Because it’s not just attraction anymore, but it will create engagement, empathy to be together. But it will be not so different from what you are also liking, you know, in your daily lives. For instance, you might have a special, like a car or a special object that you might have the empathy. But of course the difference is interactions, you know, between you, yourself, and the object.

Speaker D: There is a place in Scotland, for example, that I quite like. I brought some objects back from there, they’re stones, they have no real meaning bar the fact that I know that they came from this place in Scotland. So when I look at those, I think about that beach in Scotland. Now what you’re saying is that with a robot that you can develop a more complex relationship because obviously there’s more response than from my stones in Scotland.

Speaker G: You know, I am from Tokyo, Japanese background. Traditionally, Japanese people believe that so-called Shinto and also, you know, they are very like kind of animism, you know, aspect stone or this stuff or, you know, all things kind of having a kind of soul, you know. This is kind of traditional thinking to the objects around us. But as I mentioned, together with the technological developments about interactive techniques, I think globally, you know, really people are starting to understand this kind of new digital animism in a way. So meaning we are now not just living in nature, but we are starting to live in the second nature to understand what humanity, but in different forms, not to compare to nature. But human in a way, second nature is kind of the time that we are now kind of facing and encountering. So in this way, then, so the elements of robot robotics and those are now the part of the second nature, you know. How are we getting our humanity and how are we understanding ourselves, or how are we collaborating with such second nature together? I think that’s very exciting time to understand, you know, what we are doing.

Speaker D: What you also appear to be saying is that because of the world of the internet of things, that we’re also creating a digital persona which is registering in that, which we may not be totally unaware of.

Speaker G: Yeah, yeah. And I tried to expand the meaning of human nature and the human second nature itself. And that’s a fact, you know, compared to original nature The second nature knows what you are doing, what you are watching, what you are as a social animal. Now the second nature, the environment itself, knowing about you. And so it will be while you are talking in the space and smart speakers or city, you know, there are many listeners around you as well. So of course, if we are starting to discuss this also surveillance aspect in the second nature, I think in the second nature what we needed to take care is how we can make harmony and balance between human and the second nature. The second nature might be very severe nature, more than we are thinking. And but of course we can get the benefit as well. But you know, some people might be the creator of the second nature. So this case, you know, your personal information is utilized for creating benefits instead of you. So how to negotiate with the second nature is a definite challenge that we need to consider.

Speaker D: Hideaki Ogawa, director of Ars Electronica’s Future Lab. What he says about digital Shinto and the old animist religions reminds me of the Estonian cyber pagans we interviewed last year. It’s not far far-fetched at all to regard the Internet of Things as a way of connecting inanimate objects via what in earlier civilizations would have been called a soul. There’s a legend from ancient Greece that says Pygmalion, the sculptor, created a female figure out of ivory. He was so taken with its beauty and realism that he fell in love with it. When Aphrodite’s festival day came, Pygmalion made offerings, but was too afraid to say anything about his love for the sculpture. Instead, he wished for a bride that would be the likeness of his ivory sculpture. Returning back home, he gave a kiss to the statue and found out that it turned into a woman. The goddess of love had made his wish come true. The two of them had a daughter, Paphos, whose name was later given to the city in Cyprus. Coruscant, a popular summer holiday destination, and presumably one of those places where people do find love. And now we’ve come to the end of the programme. As Bartholomew, my trusty robot vacuum cleaner, whirs punctually into action, it’s time to bring this edition of Password to an end. We hope we’ve left you something to to think about. The producer was Blue Buffery. Jane Wyatt wrote the script with help from the staff of the 2021 Love and Sex with Robots conference online on 12th to 14th of August. Next month we’re taking a summer break, but we’ll be back on the 8th of September with more musings on the role of our technical devices in our lives and our This program has been brought to you by Resonance FM.

Speaker B: If you like what you heard, please support our work by making a donation at resonancefm.com/donate.