Troubled Bots

xodar · Post by **xodar** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:16 am

To continue an idea that came up in an earlier topic, perhaps people can have their fembots designed with problem behavior if they like that sort of thing.

It might be possible to have some behaviors in insertable chips rather than an overall software program, thus making their motives conflict and causing difficulties in their behavior. There could be a means of programming them by interacting with them that could get the conflicting "motives" to integrate, thus "curing" them of their neurosis.

Possibly there could be "freudian" and such programs for people to solve.

The reason I came up with computer game type preprogramming would be to install memories in chips resembling actual human memories of events that would be motivating elements. Maybe you'd have to make the bot "conscious" of these memories.

Maybe they could be designed to obsess over whether their ass looks fat, whether you REALLY want them (and if you did you wouldn't want sex), and with an insatiable desire for shoes...

Maybe you could get two bots who fight over you and make catty remarks to each other. Personally I'd worry the programs would go to extremes and they'd become dangerous.

Something along these lines could be what some people might like, though I personally cannot imagine why. One of my reasons for being interested in fembots is to not have to put up with such nonsense. Why would you want to have to deal with neurotic conflicts if you didn't have to?

Puppetmaster16 · Post by **Puppetmaster16** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:52 pm

Well when people were mentionning imperfect personalities I'm not sure they meant 'neurotic behavior'. I mean I personally don't see how someone could be attached to something that has no personality whatsoever even if she does look like a woman... I'd probably get bored!

xodar · Post by **xodar** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:43 pm

Puppetmaster16 wrote:Well when people were mentionning imperfect personalities I'm not sure they meant 'neurotic behavior'. I mean I personally don't see how someone could be attached to something that has no personality whatsoever even if she does look like a woman... I'd probably get bored!

How odd. I find people with conflicts and hidden motives boring. They don't have time for creative activity and they interfere with me. They can be dangerous, though most highly dangerous people are not at all confused or neurotic or even very conflicted.
I suppose making and remaking oneself is a worthwhile creative activity, but when your life is used up what have you accomplished that might go on and benefit others?

People mistake creativity and originality for being neurotic or having some personal inner troubles. That's because they don't understand what the person is saying or doing and may envy them.

But my own point in wanting a rather bland bot is that I will be able to satisfy needs and pursue my own interests without having to stop and grapple with someone's often unnecessary quirks.
I see, though, that if someone wants a companion that's a bit difficult, there's nothing wrong with it -- if they choose it.

Perhaps people who want to be psychiatrists can buy or be issued troubled bots the way medical students get corpses to study.

Puppetmaster16 · Post by **Puppetmaster16** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:37 pm

So you basically equate having a personality... with being difficult?

xodar · Post by **xodar** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:37 am

Puppetmaster16 wrote:So you basically equate having a personality... with being difficult?

Everybody has a personality. Some of them are difficult and some aren't. Why not seek out the latter? If the "person" isn't real or alive, so what?
If we could have bots made to suit us, why criticize someone else for his choice of robot? Doesn't that violate one of the reasons for them? I even suggested people could have them built with difficult personalities if that's what they want; while I find it baffling I don't want to harass them for it.

A difficult personality might be one that tries to bully others over the kinds of machines and gadgets they'd like.

fection · Post by **fection** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:17 am

Puppetmaster isn't trying to bully you. In the past, you've made statements that could be interpreted as sweeping generalisations and I think this irks some people (myself included). So I speak up occasionally to represent a different, sometimes contrary view. That's a discussion, not bullying.
It would be bullying if someone is insulting or intimidating. Otherwise it's just people disagreeing with you, which is what makes talking to people interesting.
Myself, I think it's good to hear you say some personalities aren't difficult. I look forward to hearing you to say that that includes women.

xodar · Post by **xodar** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:10 pm

Everybody likes the notion of designing a fembot's physical appearence. So I come up with suggestions for how you might also develop their distinctive personalities that would be as suitable to you as their appearance and I'm subject to a kind of inquisition.

I didn't say anything about anyone here's personalities and intended to put forward an interesting idea and not hit nerves. What's more important, being able to design her personality or declaring the person who suggests it a witch?

Apparently saying that I like good natured, pleasant women who want to get along with you is admitting to some kind of hideous perversion. I didn't say anyone else has to like nice persons. Go ahead and design a robot who nags incessantly, complains, and has nothing good to say about you. At least you can be sure I'll never steal her.

Puppetmaster16 · Post by **Puppetmaster16** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:30 pm

I'm sorry if you ever thought I was trying to 'attack' your personal preferences, as that was not my intent. I was only wondering what you seemed to prefer about the idea of the 'blank' robot, rather than one that might have a 'pleasant' personality, for instance. I'm only curious.

xodar · Post by **xodar** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:07 pm

Puppetmaster16 wrote:I'm sorry if you ever thought I was trying to 'attack' your personal preferences, as that was not my intent. I was only wondering what you seemed to prefer about the idea of the 'blank' robot, rather than one that might have a 'pleasant' personality, for instance. I'm only curious.

No, I don't want a blank robot although that's likely to be what the earliest effective fembots are.
Persons, and by extension robots that are quarrelsome, ill humored, and such bore me. Pleasant people are easier to deal with. So would pleasant robots be -- and robots wouldn't have to sometimes fake being nice.

But what I was thinking about was people being able to construct the personality type that interests them or that they work best with and some ways it could be done: autonomous modules that could introduce a bit of conflict like "complexes" and memories created by computer games on which robots would base their future development.

I thought I was being attacked for thought crimes:

In the past, you've made statements that could be interpreted as sweeping generalisations

but I was working out ideas that I figured would be interesting. I have to start with my personal preferences because it baffles me what some people like in a relationship.

fection · Post by **fection** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:18 am

You are not subject to 'some kind of inquisition'. I spoke up because you said...
'A difficult personality might be one that tries to bully others over the kinds of machines and gadgets they'd like.'
... which sounds resoundingly like a comment on Puppetmaster's post.
In the past you have not just said you like 'pleasant, good natured women'. You have given the impression that you believe most women are unpleasant and vindictive. It would not be right for me to let these statements go unchallenged, if only to show new visitors that there is not one overriding belief here.
So it might seem like I'm being argumentative (even acting like one of those stubbornly contrary people you describe) and I'm sorry if I have taken things off topic at times, but I think it is important to have a broad spectrum of views represented.

xodar · Post by **xodar** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:05 am

I see. Well, in fact, most Western women are unpleasant and vindictive. Why would I want to spend time with someone who says she needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle or that "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine"?

I don't see that as the point. The point is that we're all here because of an interest in artificial women -- and artificial persons in general. Personally, after 40+ years of the garbage I quoted above I have a right to my position. I don't say I want to harm anybody, only that I'm interested in alternatives. Possibly younger women are better persons than those of my particular generation and the ones right after, but there's no way I'm going to interest someone as young as my granddaughter (who could be an adult). The only thing I have to say is that while my position may not make some people happy, I have every right to it and my ideas as to how to construct an artificial, computerized personality should be judged on their own merits.

I really did think the idea itself would interest people. I was a bit surprised....

Tio · Post by **Tio** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:42 am

Im sorry but I dont find most western women to be unpleasent and vindictive. I have dated women and men and both have good and bad points largely dependant on their personality rather than their gender.

I am female and do, quite often, find your comments about women to be offensive.

fection · Post by **fection** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:33 pm

I absolutely agree that you have every right to hold and speak about whatever opinion you please. I've never asked you not to speak.
I'll just repeat though, that I'm aware that to a new reader here, to come across a post of yours without an alternate argument might give them a skewed idea of what most people here think. And I'm not saying that there is one general belief at Fembot Central, just that people are varied and many-splendoured in their opinions and you make me want to point that out. And I really am sorry that this seems to have the repeated side-affect of ruining your discussions!

xodar · Post by **xodar** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:35 pm

fection wrote:I absolutely agree that you have every right to hold and speak about whatever opinion you please. I've never asked you not to speak.
I'll just repeat though, that I'm aware that to a new reader here, to come across a post of yours with alternate argument might give them a skewed idea of what most people here think. And I'm not saying that there is one general belief at Fembot Central, just that people are varied and many-splendoured in their opinions and you make me want to point that out. And I really am sorry that this seems to have the repeated side-affect of ruining your discussions!

I intend for the ideas I expressed to be taken on their own merit as possibilities for future experimentation.
I'd not have said anything as specific about some of my reasons if I didn't pick up a current of negativity simply because my identity was on the post and -- tellingly -- because I said I didn't like negativity. But there are men with less restrained ideas than mine and very many of the same position. They just don't want any PC attacks.

I guess after this nobody wants to turn their attention to designing an android's personality...which can be anything one wants once the technology is worked out.

xodar · Post by **xodar** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:48 pm

Tio wrote:Im sorry but I dont find most western women to be unpleasent and vindictive. I have dated women and men and both have good and bad points largely dependant on their personality rather than their gender.

I am female and do, quite often, find your comments about women to be offensive.

Indeed, and if you're a good person you probably should to an extent. Much as I am offended by the "bicycle" and "what's mine" comments I cited, no doubt.

However, I still hope you'll be interested in the possibilities of designing an android's personality rather than accepting whatever bland program might be turned out by the manufacturer.

Partly this train of thought was inspired by the fact that I'm going to get a young dog because my two remaining ones are elderly -- ages 12 and 16. I choose a dog on the basis of whether it likes me; a totally strange dog that is glad to see you is a better choice than simply selecting one that's cute or pretty or a certain breed. I see them as persons, not objects or toys. However, I do like pretty dogs. Hence the process takes some time, looking in shelters and even checking stray dogs. Eventually I'll choose the right person, ugly or not.
If you can design your own fembot you can choose the appearance and the basic personality you like, ceratinly important considering the amount of money you'll have to expend.

Stephaniebot · Post by **Stephaniebot** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:03 am

Trouble is I've met women who are exactly like that unfortunately, but thankfully they do seem to be only a small minority. But then again I've met men with a remarkably similar attitude as well! Similar small minority I should add.

I would be interested in helping to design an android's personality (preferably to be implanted into myself) if I had the slightest clue what I was doing! As I say I'm more interested in being computer controlled than computer controlling.

In one sense I agree with Xodar, with the money you will need to pay out to buy a fembot there ought to be some degree of customisation available, though I suspect that will be limited to looks, hair colour, figure and voice in all honesty.
But some of his general critiques about women as a whole are a little harsh in my eyes. There are women just as he describes them, but there are enough out there who are not to more than counter them.

Moxon · Post by **Moxon** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:13 am

fection wrote: In the past, you've made statements that could be interpreted as sweeping generalisations and I think this irks some people (myself included).

xodar wrote: Everybody likes the notion of designing a fembot's physical appearence.

xodar wrote: Well, in fact, most Western women are unpleasant and vindictive.

fection · Post by **fection** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:05 am

Sorry, but I feel the need to reply again (apologies to Xodar and moderators if it appears that I'm not being moderate!).
But I don't like negativity either! Just because I'm disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm being negative. It seems bizzare that I have to point that out when you say things like 'most western women are unpleasant and vindictive'.
But don't imply that I do not want you to say whatever you want. I am likewise more than happy to state my own opinion (as is increasingly obvious!).
Also, I am not part of any percieved PC brigade. If you knew me you'd know I'm a persistant loner and resent unquestioning groups. I will not have my identity subsumed (OK, so I'm over-stating the case) by some media-created tag so that you can rather lazily dismiss my disagreement.
I guess if we want to continue this discussion, perhaps we should be PMing eachother... Arguing in front of the kids, and all that.

xodar · Post by **xodar** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:11 am

No need to resort to PMs. I can sum up what I mean and hopefully move on from:

some of his general critiques about women as a whole are a little harsh in my eyes

You don't have to agree with either women or men no matter what they say or risk being harrassed or even assaulted if you're female. You don't have to support women under many circumstances no matter how they treat you. You don't have to overlook anything preposterous or dangerous they say and at least pretend to agree. ...You don't understand if you're female.

Political Correctness is simply repressive Puritanism returned but without the religious element -- and thus without the limits of a supporting allegedly unchangeable text.

But I really want to focus on the possibility of eventually developing and programming a bot's personality. Everyone can design their own, at leats eventually. Probably when they reach a high degree of physical sophistication and the novelty gives way to commonplace there will be demands for that and competition among manufacturers. Certainly that will be after midcentury at least but why not think about it now?

fection · Post by **fection** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:10 pm

If you're suggesting women aren't at risk of being assualted, it might be news to you to hear that in Britain, two women a week are murdered in domestic situations. Hardly indicative of women seizing all power.
Frankly I struggle to follow the meaning in your last post (and I'm sorry, but I put it down to the minimalist style of writing as opposed to any lack in my cognitive powers). I assume you don't mean that women just don't understand things generally! If so, you HAVE been phenomenally unlucky - Just stop dating stupid women!
Seriously though, what DO you mean? I'm curious.
I WILL say that I agree that you don't have to support ANYone regardless of how they treat you. Why be a doormat? But why do you say that applies to women only? And no, I would not overlook preposterous or dangerous behaviour - all sound advice. But that applies to anyone, irrespective of gender. This, I have said before, but it seems like I need to repeat it.
And quite why you talk again about political correctness has me baffled. It is a lazy way of dismissing arguments without actually tackling them. You are not saying anything specific when you use jargon like that. Please be more specific.
The overall impression I get from your last post is that you seem to be presuming that I HAVE been doing the things on your 'you don't need to...' list. I haven't. If someone says something I don't agree with I'll pipe up (you know it's true!) whether she's my girlfriend or not.
How heavily must I stress the points in my replies? Does any of this actually get heard?
I CAN be for EQUAL rights and NOT be part of some 'PC' group. Do you see that there ARE people that exist outside your seemingly narrow classifications? One does not, and cannot know all.
It would bring me great joy (well, y'know, whatever) to hear you say that your impression of women is NOT an absolutely accurate portrayal of the gender as a whole. Or course, we develop these impressions from our individual narrow (relative to the whole) experience. You seem trapped into applying your experience to everything, when the one person your experience has had in common, is you.
Have you ever wondered why you've happened across so many supposedly vindictive women? Isn't there some curiosity in your head that wonders what you've been bringing to these relationships? Something other than blaming all women that makes you wonder why the same pattern develops? Is there anything anyone could say to make you question yourself? Surely that would be a step forward, or a new development at least.

revtek · Post by **revtek** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:23 pm

"Every stink that fought an air vent, thought of itself as Don Quixote".

I can't remember who said that originally, but it seems appropriate.

Tio · Post by **Tio** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:27 am

Fembots; I think that being able to have a bot that learns or that has a custom personality is a good thing. All people are different and would need different things.
I will say though that I find that the perfect partner is never perfect. I used to want someone who was caring and kind and sexy and nice. I got that once and I was bored to hell. Turns out that I need that but I also need a partner with a bit of spice and sarcasm who will stand up for their point even if its against myself. I like independence.
So I think that maybe having a bot that can learn or adapt would be good or would be easily programmable. Maybe a list of personality traits that you can turn up and down to certain levels.

Also for people who have a partner already they may not want a personality. It could cause much jealousy specially if the fembot fetish is not shared. I know my partner would much prefer if a robot was only a robot with limited response and only able to comply with orders should I own one. Ands thats only cause I like girls as well. I doubt he would be happy with a male bot in the house.

As for the hijacking of this thread, Fection has many a good point. I am a woman who has been abused (trust me, you dont want to know) but I dont hate all men. I had a girlfriend once who was absolutely psycho nuts (no really, shes in therapy now) and I dont hate all women. You cant make generalizations, if I did I would never have left the house or dared to love again.

xodar · Post by **xodar** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:59 pm

I'm in a crowd of obsessed fanatics. I have far broader views and interests than I've seen on such issues almost anywhere.

However, I really was trying to come up with ideas as to developing a bot personality that would resemble a human one. What personality someone else wants I don't care -- but I began to get these probings to see if my motives violated thoughtcrime rules. Apparently some would want to design mine's personality and also design their own's.

That's what happens when you have ideas...

So don't you think the artificial situations in a game might create memories of the situations resembling human memories? Then you remove her chip and insert them or download the information. She will actually have "mental" images similar to the ones you can summon.

Couldn't you create a basic tendency like different real persons have based on excitation level, perceptions that are received, and such? Would autonomous chips or programs create "mental" conflict? Or at least occasionally unpredictable behavior?

Is that wrong?

revtek · Post by **revtek** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:47 pm

[quote="xodar"]I'm in a crowd of obsessed fanatics. I have far broader views and interests than I've seen on such issues almost anywhere.

[quote]

C'mon, man. Do you actually buy that? Where is 'anywhere'? The "Delta Farce" premiere? A Klan rally?

Fanaticism, at its core, is the unshakable belief in a single thing: America is evil/abortion is murder/all women are money-grubbing bitches.

This redundant hammering of the third idea in many of your posts IS fanatical. Merely questioning it doesn't make opposing group members Kool-Aid drinking PC zombies (To steal a phrase from king douchebag Bill O). I don't think it's because my age group grew up watching After School Specials, either.

What's the goal, besides letting people know that you're pissed off at women?

fection · Post by **fection** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:09 am

Xodar, you're right if you're talking about THIS interest. I DO have a narrow 'band' of interest in fembots, which is why I tend not to take part in discussions here (read my stories or watch my animations and you'll see an unmistakable pattern developing!).

As I have already said several times, the reason I'm posting this time is because I'm interested in a broad RANGE of views being represented (and here, I'm not talking about the 'broadness' of each view - I'm talking about the 'broadness' of the spectrum of ideas) You are free to post whatever you like and so am I. And that's absolutely fine. I'm just wary that new readers might interpret my silence as implicit agreement with your views.

Claiming I, or others, are against ideas being expressed actually made me laugh! Sounds a pretty typical defensive reaction. You're conveniently blurring between: a) implying that I mean to kill off your intended discussion and, b) me disagreeing with your views on gender. I'm not interested in killing your intended discussion and have apologised several times for seemingly hijacking it. But I've already stated my reason for posting, and I think that reason justifies the (now surprisingly prolonged!) interuption.

I do understand why you feel like you're being picked on though. I am being persistent, but only because I think it's important. I'm actually curious as to why you have the views you have. They don't seem a particularly enjoyable way to live out the rest of your time. I was thinking a continuing sense of development might be more interesting to you. I guess posting on Fembot Central might facilitate that, but prior to fembots being developed in reality, you seem to be limiting your options (I'd really just like to hear that you'd met someone 'nice').

As for my development - the views you've expressed seem very similar to things I've heard in the past. They're not new and not particularly interesting to me, other than making me wonder 'why does someone still think that?'. I think they stem from men seeing women's increasing freedom in relativistic terms. Just because women are gaining 'power' does not mean they have the greater share of it.

There's still inequality in the treatment of the genders and yes, resultant complications for both that still need to be sorted out (to do with adjusting the stubborn infrastructure). But then, with the views you've expressed about women, I'd guess you think men and women are too different to be 'equal', which just goes to demonstrate the amusing hoop-jumps the human brain performs to justify it's own beliefs.