There's an old George R R Martin story called Meathouse Man that explores a lot of these topics: loneliness, rejection, alternative outlets for physical intimacy, and sex with - well, not robots exactly, but a similar kind of programmed-to-consent non-mind. Horrifying and heartbreaking at the same time. Worth a read if you can find the story anywhere.
Well this is the article I didn’t know I needed today! Such a juicy one.
But yeah, if there’s one area of life that I’d especially like to avoid the uncanny valley, it’s in love (though you chose well with the Henry Cavill reference… well, and Gal Gadot).
If the underlying idea of “perfect lovers” is that these kinds of interactions should be frictionless and easy, that really worries me for so many reasons. Seems like it would lend itself to a greater intolerance of conflict and differences in others, thus a greater occurrence of cognitive inflexibility—and cognitive inflexibility has been clinically associated with a number of negative mental health outcomes, including a decrease in one’s ability to handle stress.
When do we all just agree to get off the internet entirely and move back into psychical spaces with each other? Things happen when bodies are together… just sayin.
I think that many people have a very imperfect conception of perfection. It's unknowable, so every image we have of it will eventually be found lacking.
I adore the point about cognitive inflexibility, which now worries me about a lot of (social) technology that indeed tries to make everything as frictionless as possible...
(But leaving the internet entirely... I wouldn't have virtually met you, so surely there are some sparkles of goodness to be found there 😉 ?)
"Intimacy is a journey" I agree it takes time to even feel comfortable enough with someone to become intimate. I wonder if the psychological affects of having a sex doll are similar to that of using porn, except that physical contact might create stronger attachments. What do you think would be worse case scenario if sex dolls become as real as you described?
I agree that the physical contact may increase attachment. Add to that that people will probably use the same robot over time, which may also increase the feeling of having a 'bond'.
Worst case? That we collectively completely shun human contact and go for the easiest option. As you say, working up to even initiating intimacy takes time and it's never guaranteed. If people will choose a robot that's ready on command, we might loose that deeper level that comes only through the work. One giant society of human rats endlessly pressing the instant shallow bliss button ;).
Great article at a time when we are questioning human value versus AI, which we are told is faster and smarter than we are.
Loneliness is an increasing source of depression associated with social media, but the problem arises when we commodify everything with price, then nothing has value. Worse, when we walk into a strip bar we objectify strippers as a commodity, and when we walk into a maternity ward we subjectify women as mothers. Our moral values and self worth are built upon the later and AI is built upon the former. Any society that uses robots as sex slaves will eventually do the same for people. Commodification obeys Gresham’s Law, subjectification obeys moral laws.
That's a really insightful perspective, Geoffrey. I think you hit on something very important with "when we commodify everything with price, then nothing has value." This kind of captures an impoverishment of how we perceive the world and others in it, which seems to drive some of the current social narratives.
It is one of my biggest concerns in this ubiquitous drive to automate the planet, we will lose our self worth. Here’s the thing that AI is telling us; computers are good at connecting dots, but humans are good at connecting unconnected dots. Imagine, if you will, Sir Isaac Newton sitting in front of a tree and watching an apple fall, and from this he devised the entire laws of motion and the Universal Gravitational Constant. Could a robot do that?
I truly can't imagine. For me a warm sexy natural human being is the only sex I'd actually enjoy. I call people who like rubber sex, vegetarians. I'm really a carnivore 😅😂
This was a really interesting post. I wanted to share something from the book The Master and his Emissary by Iain MacGilchisrt, its a book about the interaction of the left and right hemispheres of the brain and how that has affected the history and development of the West. One of the things he talks about is Decastes pacing in his home wondering if everyone outside his house is a robot, becuase he only knows that he, himself, is human. Even though thats been a topic is philosophy, we all kind of know that everyone walking outside our house is a human being. MacGilchrist is refering to this innate in-betweenness of things that we as human being pick up on, a kind of intangible known truth. He actually contributes Decartes machinations to a possible psychotic disorder, because that in-betweenness comes from the right hemispheres ability to take everything in. One of the key take aways from the book is that the left side who should be emissary has usurped the master, the right hemisphere, and we can see that in our culture. Ill spare you a long list of examples, but these sex dolls are a perfect example! They are re-presentations, devoid of all the imperfections, uncertainties, and conflicts that come with a real person. Its idealized, optimistic, and a rationalization (all characteristics of the left side) to the problems intimacy and connection that we desperately need. Its the right hemisphere that whispers to us that this is unreasonable. Eventually the novelty wares off, the ache of lonliness settles back in, because the sex doll can never choose you. One of the most rewarding parts of intimacy is being chosen. When I look at my partner its reassurance that I am worthy of someones love. True love and intimacy has worthiness woven in its fabric. You are right in that, I think the dolls will become more realistic, but like sincerity, being real is notoriously hard to fake. Sorry for the long comment, I just thought this was interesting and that you might enjoy the insights from The Master and his Emissary.
It's really interesting and made me think of the uncanny valley effect - maybe those humanoid robots feel 'off' because, even though they may have the rationalized desirability, they don't quite have that in-betweenness. (Just a thought that needs more work.)
Also, "One of the most rewarding parts of intimacy is being chosen." That's so true and so beautiful!
Paradoxes not actually being a problem is part of that in-between ess. Like in Zeno's paradox, we can understand in a closed system or just mathematically that since the Tortoise is ahead Achilles can never catch him (left hemisphere) but we also just *know* that's not the case (right hemisphere).
I had another thought about the dolls, one major evolutionary adaptation that we have is very sensitive facial recognition. It is so good in fact that we see faces in tea leaves and water stains. This makes us excellent at not only identifying facial features but how they move, respond to cold, hot, pain, etc. So if it's not programed to naturally respond to these sensations it would make us feel uneasy. Like watching someone stab their leg with a knife and have no reaction.
You're absolutely right, and, as you hint at, we can take this beyond facial recognition. There's so much non-verbal communication going on that we're not consciously aware of -- and because we're not consciously aware of it, we may also not be able to 'program' it.
If your only mirror is a robot that provides a perfectly tailored user experience, what do you become? Issues of empathy, self-esteem, narcissism and such aside, that can only create a diminished, less than human, similarly artificial being.
Connection to others also connects us with ourselves. We'd become artificial, not because we've augmented our bodies and brains, but by degrading our psyches.
Also, did anyone else start thinking of Chucky halfway through? No? Just me? Cool.
Agreed; there’s a lot we learn by interacting with others who aren’t tailored to our preferences. That’s not always easy, but perhaps that’s exactly why it matters.
It's not merely that we learn, we hold on to what we already are. It would be like self-reinforcing feedback loop: our own 'input' overtime becomes increasingly like the robot's 'output', until both are hollow.
So many and nuanced arguments here to help us consider a tricky topic from different angles. Really enjoyed reading this, Gunnar. This is a topic I’ve been paying attention to for work (especially how AI can impact relationships) but I of coronavirus feel invested in it personally as technology has transformed the way we form attachments. Reading your post has brought to mind a book by Jenny Kleeman “Sex Robots & Vegan Meat” which is an exploration of the growth and hyper-realism of sex dolls, among other things. It’s also reminded me of a recent film “I’m Your Man” by Maria Schrader. For anyone intrigued about the themes you explore in this entry, it’s a highly recommended movie.
And it's so true that especially covid has shifted a lot of our interactions to (even more) technologically mediated (or perhaps it simply speeded up the process), which is something I'm intrigued by from a behavioral/belonging point of view. (Which means I'm also very curious about your work now 😉)
I've realised now that auto-correct has typed in "coronavirus" when I meant to write "of course" but glad that has led to another angle to the conversation 😅 I work with creative technology companies (many of which use AI and so I need to have an understanding of the potential applications) and following trends one of the things that is on the rise is AI-powered companion bots and virtual partners. Caryn.AI is a great (and worrying I'd add) example of that trend - https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-06-27/influencers-ai-chat-caryn-marjorie
Ah yes, I've read about the Caryn case (which, If I'm not mistaken, quickly devolved in a lot of users using it for dark sexual fantasies - big surprise...) Worrying, indeed. Companion bots and virtual partners *could* be developed with beneficial motivations in mind (alleviating loneliness etc.), but I worry that profit-incentives will lead to cutting corners and idealizing objectification (not applicable in all cases, but sex sells, after all).
Exactly. There’s of course the other side of the coin: with a loneliness crisis, especially in old age, could AI companions be used for good? Again the question is whether that may end up replacing human connection, but reading about how many elderly people in the UK claim they hardly speak to anyone during the week it seems we’re not really doing a great job of keeping company to each other.
I think for me it boils down to a desire for authenticity. I don't like things that pretend to be other things. Machines aren't people. If they someday become people, then they have the same freedom of choice I do, and that's a different ballgame. The ultimate in cross-species love.
I didn't think I'd ever be reading an article like this, but here we are. Thanks. It was informative, and gave me a lot to think about--not that I'd ever indulge, but I understand why some people do. Despite the notion that what is artificial can be more accessible and 'better' than what is authentic and real, it's overall a worrying concept at how much AI can be used to replicate things for the guise of ease and less-hassle. Maybe I'm just running my mouth. Perfection is a thing which offer ceaseless pursuit, and what is artificial only fills the void even less. Void, not hole, because innuendo...
Thanks for reading, Mitch. I'm in the same place on this topic: I sort of get it, but I also think that such smooth perfection will not really replace what some people want it to replace (the messiness of human interactions).
The subjective reactions to a synthetic lover finely tuned to a user’s hot buttons sounds like a step toward artificial hallucination. Oliver Sachs described them as indistinguishable from how we experience the conscious state.
Oh, this is interesting, Richard, especially considering the additional, ubiquitous screens and (coming?) VR. It does make one wonder how difficult it will become to (not) hook up to the experience machine…
Fully agree with that last statement, better to be a closeted romantic than almost anything else. A lady with a snort to her laugh, and an imperfection here and there is better than any robot could be. One is human and the other is not. And the humanity of a lady is better than some piece of fabric or gears.
Considering his rings quite like Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
“The perfect partner theme refers to 1) people who always find issues with potential (sex) partners, but also 2) people who see too many flaws in themselves, whether it’s because of an overly harsh inner critic, lack of sexual confidence, or bad relationship experiences. The love doll theme revolves around the doll being more than a mere object.”.
(However, this study (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2022.2031848) didn't find any difference in narcissism between owners and non-owners - most differences were in seeing women as objects and feeling entitled to sex, or as they call it, offensive-supportive cognition. But, yeah, questionnaires are necessarily limited.)
Now I wonder whether narcissists might get a bigger kick out of using real people.
Absolutely, especially when it comes to sex. People get bashful. It’s really tragic that here in the States, we’re very puritanical and it’s really hard to achieve much without surveys. Some do, but we really should have more.
How enjoyable could it be without being wanted? Isn’t that most of the turn-on?
Absolutely. But I wonder/worry that if you feel unwanted for long enough, you're more likely or willing to give in to the illusion.
Thanks for reading!
There's an old George R R Martin story called Meathouse Man that explores a lot of these topics: loneliness, rejection, alternative outlets for physical intimacy, and sex with - well, not robots exactly, but a similar kind of programmed-to-consent non-mind. Horrifying and heartbreaking at the same time. Worth a read if you can find the story anywhere.
Didn’t know that one yet. I’ll see if I can find it. Thanks, J.
Well this is the article I didn’t know I needed today! Such a juicy one.
But yeah, if there’s one area of life that I’d especially like to avoid the uncanny valley, it’s in love (though you chose well with the Henry Cavill reference… well, and Gal Gadot).
If the underlying idea of “perfect lovers” is that these kinds of interactions should be frictionless and easy, that really worries me for so many reasons. Seems like it would lend itself to a greater intolerance of conflict and differences in others, thus a greater occurrence of cognitive inflexibility—and cognitive inflexibility has been clinically associated with a number of negative mental health outcomes, including a decrease in one’s ability to handle stress.
When do we all just agree to get off the internet entirely and move back into psychical spaces with each other? Things happen when bodies are together… just sayin.
I think that many people have a very imperfect conception of perfection. It's unknowable, so every image we have of it will eventually be found lacking.
I adore the point about cognitive inflexibility, which now worries me about a lot of (social) technology that indeed tries to make everything as frictionless as possible...
(But leaving the internet entirely... I wouldn't have virtually met you, so surely there are some sparkles of goodness to be found there 😉 ?)
Ah yes, but hyperbole offers its own rewards. 🙃
Absolutely, undeniably, entirely true!
Forever and ever!
"Intimacy is a journey" I agree it takes time to even feel comfortable enough with someone to become intimate. I wonder if the psychological affects of having a sex doll are similar to that of using porn, except that physical contact might create stronger attachments. What do you think would be worse case scenario if sex dolls become as real as you described?
Thanks for the comment, javier.
I agree that the physical contact may increase attachment. Add to that that people will probably use the same robot over time, which may also increase the feeling of having a 'bond'.
Worst case? That we collectively completely shun human contact and go for the easiest option. As you say, working up to even initiating intimacy takes time and it's never guaranteed. If people will choose a robot that's ready on command, we might loose that deeper level that comes only through the work. One giant society of human rats endlessly pressing the instant shallow bliss button ;).
Great article at a time when we are questioning human value versus AI, which we are told is faster and smarter than we are.
Loneliness is an increasing source of depression associated with social media, but the problem arises when we commodify everything with price, then nothing has value. Worse, when we walk into a strip bar we objectify strippers as a commodity, and when we walk into a maternity ward we subjectify women as mothers. Our moral values and self worth are built upon the later and AI is built upon the former. Any society that uses robots as sex slaves will eventually do the same for people. Commodification obeys Gresham’s Law, subjectification obeys moral laws.
That's a really insightful perspective, Geoffrey. I think you hit on something very important with "when we commodify everything with price, then nothing has value." This kind of captures an impoverishment of how we perceive the world and others in it, which seems to drive some of the current social narratives.
It is one of my biggest concerns in this ubiquitous drive to automate the planet, we will lose our self worth. Here’s the thing that AI is telling us; computers are good at connecting dots, but humans are good at connecting unconnected dots. Imagine, if you will, Sir Isaac Newton sitting in front of a tree and watching an apple fall, and from this he devised the entire laws of motion and the Universal Gravitational Constant. Could a robot do that?
I truly can't imagine. For me a warm sexy natural human being is the only sex I'd actually enjoy. I call people who like rubber sex, vegetarians. I'm really a carnivore 😅😂
Perfect comment: no notes.
This was a really interesting post. I wanted to share something from the book The Master and his Emissary by Iain MacGilchisrt, its a book about the interaction of the left and right hemispheres of the brain and how that has affected the history and development of the West. One of the things he talks about is Decastes pacing in his home wondering if everyone outside his house is a robot, becuase he only knows that he, himself, is human. Even though thats been a topic is philosophy, we all kind of know that everyone walking outside our house is a human being. MacGilchrist is refering to this innate in-betweenness of things that we as human being pick up on, a kind of intangible known truth. He actually contributes Decartes machinations to a possible psychotic disorder, because that in-betweenness comes from the right hemispheres ability to take everything in. One of the key take aways from the book is that the left side who should be emissary has usurped the master, the right hemisphere, and we can see that in our culture. Ill spare you a long list of examples, but these sex dolls are a perfect example! They are re-presentations, devoid of all the imperfections, uncertainties, and conflicts that come with a real person. Its idealized, optimistic, and a rationalization (all characteristics of the left side) to the problems intimacy and connection that we desperately need. Its the right hemisphere that whispers to us that this is unreasonable. Eventually the novelty wares off, the ache of lonliness settles back in, because the sex doll can never choose you. One of the most rewarding parts of intimacy is being chosen. When I look at my partner its reassurance that I am worthy of someones love. True love and intimacy has worthiness woven in its fabric. You are right in that, I think the dolls will become more realistic, but like sincerity, being real is notoriously hard to fake. Sorry for the long comment, I just thought this was interesting and that you might enjoy the insights from The Master and his Emissary.
What an amazing comment, Shruti! Thanks for that.
It's really interesting and made me think of the uncanny valley effect - maybe those humanoid robots feel 'off' because, even though they may have the rationalized desirability, they don't quite have that in-betweenness. (Just a thought that needs more work.)
Also, "One of the most rewarding parts of intimacy is being chosen." That's so true and so beautiful!
Paradoxes not actually being a problem is part of that in-between ess. Like in Zeno's paradox, we can understand in a closed system or just mathematically that since the Tortoise is ahead Achilles can never catch him (left hemisphere) but we also just *know* that's not the case (right hemisphere).
I had another thought about the dolls, one major evolutionary adaptation that we have is very sensitive facial recognition. It is so good in fact that we see faces in tea leaves and water stains. This makes us excellent at not only identifying facial features but how they move, respond to cold, hot, pain, etc. So if it's not programed to naturally respond to these sensations it would make us feel uneasy. Like watching someone stab their leg with a knife and have no reaction.
You're absolutely right, and, as you hint at, we can take this beyond facial recognition. There's so much non-verbal communication going on that we're not consciously aware of -- and because we're not consciously aware of it, we may also not be able to 'program' it.
If your only mirror is a robot that provides a perfectly tailored user experience, what do you become? Issues of empathy, self-esteem, narcissism and such aside, that can only create a diminished, less than human, similarly artificial being.
Connection to others also connects us with ourselves. We'd become artificial, not because we've augmented our bodies and brains, but by degrading our psyches.
Also, did anyone else start thinking of Chucky halfway through? No? Just me? Cool.
Thanks, Andreea!
Agreed; there’s a lot we learn by interacting with others who aren’t tailored to our preferences. That’s not always easy, but perhaps that’s exactly why it matters.
Also, Chucky? Yep, just you 😉
Ooooh! A possessed doll driven by murderous rage is both an obvious and lesser threat. Yeah, I'll take my chances with Chucky, thank you very much.
It's not merely that we learn, we hold on to what we already are. It would be like self-reinforcing feedback loop: our own 'input' overtime becomes increasingly like the robot's 'output', until both are hollow.
Great point!
So many and nuanced arguments here to help us consider a tricky topic from different angles. Really enjoyed reading this, Gunnar. This is a topic I’ve been paying attention to for work (especially how AI can impact relationships) but I of coronavirus feel invested in it personally as technology has transformed the way we form attachments. Reading your post has brought to mind a book by Jenny Kleeman “Sex Robots & Vegan Meat” which is an exploration of the growth and hyper-realism of sex dolls, among other things. It’s also reminded me of a recent film “I’m Your Man” by Maria Schrader. For anyone intrigued about the themes you explore in this entry, it’s a highly recommended movie.
Thank you, Cristina!
I'll definitely check out the book and the movie.
And it's so true that especially covid has shifted a lot of our interactions to (even more) technologically mediated (or perhaps it simply speeded up the process), which is something I'm intrigued by from a behavioral/belonging point of view. (Which means I'm also very curious about your work now 😉)
I've realised now that auto-correct has typed in "coronavirus" when I meant to write "of course" but glad that has led to another angle to the conversation 😅 I work with creative technology companies (many of which use AI and so I need to have an understanding of the potential applications) and following trends one of the things that is on the rise is AI-powered companion bots and virtual partners. Caryn.AI is a great (and worrying I'd add) example of that trend - https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-06-27/influencers-ai-chat-caryn-marjorie
Ah yes, I've read about the Caryn case (which, If I'm not mistaken, quickly devolved in a lot of users using it for dark sexual fantasies - big surprise...) Worrying, indeed. Companion bots and virtual partners *could* be developed with beneficial motivations in mind (alleviating loneliness etc.), but I worry that profit-incentives will lead to cutting corners and idealizing objectification (not applicable in all cases, but sex sells, after all).
Exactly. There’s of course the other side of the coin: with a loneliness crisis, especially in old age, could AI companions be used for good? Again the question is whether that may end up replacing human connection, but reading about how many elderly people in the UK claim they hardly speak to anyone during the week it seems we’re not really doing a great job of keeping company to each other.
I think for me it boils down to a desire for authenticity. I don't like things that pretend to be other things. Machines aren't people. If they someday become people, then they have the same freedom of choice I do, and that's a different ballgame. The ultimate in cross-species love.
The authenticity is an interesting point and I relate to it. Might also be why many influencers give me the ick.
As my dear sainted mother used to say, “Exactly!”
I didn't think I'd ever be reading an article like this, but here we are. Thanks. It was informative, and gave me a lot to think about--not that I'd ever indulge, but I understand why some people do. Despite the notion that what is artificial can be more accessible and 'better' than what is authentic and real, it's overall a worrying concept at how much AI can be used to replicate things for the guise of ease and less-hassle. Maybe I'm just running my mouth. Perfection is a thing which offer ceaseless pursuit, and what is artificial only fills the void even less. Void, not hole, because innuendo...
Thanks for reading, Mitch. I'm in the same place on this topic: I sort of get it, but I also think that such smooth perfection will not really replace what some people want it to replace (the messiness of human interactions).
You’re welcome—thanks for writing! Human interaction is beautiful BECAUSE it can be awkward and messy. Plastic perfection is just…so boring.
Thanks for sharing, Gunnar, I have never imagined myself reading an article about sex toys in my life ;)
Happy to provide that surprise for you!
The subjective reactions to a synthetic lover finely tuned to a user’s hot buttons sounds like a step toward artificial hallucination. Oliver Sachs described them as indistinguishable from how we experience the conscious state.
Oh, this is interesting, Richard, especially considering the additional, ubiquitous screens and (coming?) VR. It does make one wonder how difficult it will become to (not) hook up to the experience machine…
Fully agree with that last statement, better to be a closeted romantic than almost anything else. A lady with a snort to her laugh, and an imperfection here and there is better than any robot could be. One is human and the other is not. And the humanity of a lady is better than some piece of fabric or gears.
Yes! Three cheers for real women!
absolutely incredible read
Thanks, georgina. Means a lot!
Considering his rings quite like Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
“The perfect partner theme refers to 1) people who always find issues with potential (sex) partners, but also 2) people who see too many flaws in themselves, whether it’s because of an overly harsh inner critic, lack of sexual confidence, or bad relationship experiences. The love doll theme revolves around the doll being more than a mere object.”.
…maybe it’s for the best.
It does sound like that.
(However, this study (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2022.2031848) didn't find any difference in narcissism between owners and non-owners - most differences were in seeing women as objects and feeling entitled to sex, or as they call it, offensive-supportive cognition. But, yeah, questionnaires are necessarily limited.)
Now I wonder whether narcissists might get a bigger kick out of using real people.
Absolutely, especially when it comes to sex. People get bashful. It’s really tragic that here in the States, we’re very puritanical and it’s really hard to achieve much without surveys. Some do, but we really should have more.