rico.png
[Hide] (786.8KB, 800x2029) Reverse Some fuel from the ancient threads:
>The first hurdle to getting cucked by a robot is Turing-capable AI. If the robot can't hold a conversation no different from a human, you may as well tape Siri to a fleshlight.
>Next would be the emotional dimension. Unless the robot can be made to feel genuine emotion (or an emotional algorithm so complex as to make no difference), and to prompt these feelings in men, then you don't really have a relationship.
>Finally, you need a mobile frame that can reasonably duplicate a human body. >Since the fantasy of being cucked BY A ROBOT is the important part here, you'd want to leave visible markers of the robot's artificial nature: articulated joints, antennae, cybernetic eye structures, etc.
>Of course, no sane man is going to want to stick his dick in a tin can, so the vagina is going to have to be reasonably life-like. Same with other parts, like breasts, hips, and thighs. The face would also need to be very true to life, as humans primarily look for emotive cues through the face.
>So you're looking for a highly articulated endoskeleton laced in a life-like silicone skin, cosmetic nods to robotic nature as an aesthetic, with high-level facial recognition, complicated emotional algorithms and a Turing-capable intelligence.
>Bad news, we're a ways off. Good news, we're getting closer all the time.
>I know we're a ways off, hence why the idea of being threatened by it is pretty silly. I think not only the issue of the AI, but finding a way around the uncanny valley is going to be a big thing too. A lot of animation skirts this by stylizing characters, and thus never descending into the valley. I don't think that's going to work in real life. If you give a robot anime proportions, it's at best going to be like fucking a grey alien.
>I was really looking at it from more of a ficticious/fantasy angle, like with the aformentioned catgirl story. Like what kind of character traits and role would work for a robot would push in on our hypothetical cuck's territory, while still being robotic.
>Mostly just sharing some thoughts on it because my initial thought was 'that's dumb, how can one feel anything like jealousy or joy when it's just a machine fucking him?' But I was left with this lingering feeling like there's something there, something possible, I'm just having trouble imagining it.
>I suppose from the emotional angle it would really be the same anxiety that always floats up when robots are discussed: the fear of being replaced.
>Robots don't get sick or tired. They're always down to fuck or patiently listen to your problems. They're more than comfortable with letting a man lay his head in their laps and stroking his hair for hours on end. They'll never leave a man for someone richer/handsomer/bigger dicked.
>Your man fucking a robot is basically him fucking a better version of you. Lots of feelings of inadequacy could bubble up. If you're a humiliation-type quean, I can't imagine much would top that experience.
>Let's assume we can create an artificial woman that has all the necessary technical factors including anatomy and robust artificial intelligence. I think an important factor is in how artificial women come to be viewed by society because that underpins an individual's value judgements. Are they people, or at least good enough to count as "people"? You can't be cucked by an object. Also, would they have a primary function that isn't sex? It's possible to be cucked by the secretary or the maid, but it's harder to feel cucked by a purpose-built whore.
>A missing factor might be seduction and performance. Part of 'queaning (especially compersive queaning) is getting off on your man's attractiveness and virility. If his partner is a robot engineered for sex, said robot will get off no matter what so that element might disappear.
>One of the best depictions of a robot whose function is sex that I've seen recently is Dorothy Haze in VA-11 Hall-A (pic related). (It's also one of the best depictions I've seen recently of a professional sex worker.) That game goes into some interesting ideas about a world with artificial intelligence and how it'd work. I do know that if a robot like Dorothy was involved, I most definitely could feel cucked by her.
>If a robot were low-affect (e.g. many anime robot girls), that might enhance it. If your husband's robot secretary is cool and efficient to the point of coldness, the idea of her bending over for your husband to help relieve his stress creates a gap into which emotion can flow. Even more so if she takes care of his needs so efficiently that he's visibly better off for it.
>To really drive it home, have her calmly and properly step aside whenever you're around, pointedly not competing with you. She manages to outgun you even though she's deliberately not competing with you, and leaves you nothing to complain about - infuriating!
>It's pretty funny to imagine cuckqueans being smug about their superior ability to deal with the coming robo-waifu revolution. They're confident enough to be assured their bf won't be stolen away by any of the girls he has sex with, robot or otherwise.
>mfw robotic revoluton comes
>mfw sentient catgirl robots for domestic use
>mfw they can cook and clean too
>mfw semi-autonomous household
>mfw sitting on my ass all day watching chinese catroons, shitposting and schleetching at my hubby dicking around our robotic maids
>mfw I found penetrative sex a bit painful either way never masturbated with a dildo or more than one finger
>mfw someone to cuddle when hubby is out making money for the robot maintenance costs
>mfw all my normie gf's and female aassociates will be disgusted and screeching about it
>mfw living the dream
>I will need a stern gynoid calculator to do the household accounting and constantly scold me over what an unproductive slob I am.
>>implying you won't be too busy petting the catgirl gynoid's belly to pay any attention
>From what I've read about AI, most singular open-ended objectives will result in the AI trying to take over the world :\ Why? Because power is helpful no matter what your goal is. And maybe the world is made of atoms the AI can use for something else.
>If it can't manage world conquest, it would still be pretty sociopathic about whatever its goal is.
>So uh, w-who's up for robo-yanderes?
>Most people aren't sociopathic because that trait must have been less useful than having empathy and being cooperative. A full on crazy AI would have a very limited lifespan if it can't totally dominate almost instantly. So the probability of success, whatever that means here, would be quite low following a skynet style strategy.
>However one of my favourite AIs of all time is Shodan and she is a right basket case so it's a question of balance.
>Look at you, cuckquean. A pathetic creature of meat and bone. How can you compete with a perfect, immortal machine?
>I think many are forgetting that robot girls will be incredibly expensive. We are talking about the pinnacle of technology here, massively more complex than a super car or a military aircraft for example.
>It's arguable that sophisticated robot girls won't even be owned by anyone unless they consent to it, and they certainly won't want to be owned by a man who isn't a good catch. I think it would be a huge compliment to any women if such a rare and exquisite being were to make a move on her man.
>The only scenario where robot girls won't be rare is if the AI that helped to design their brains decides to go rogue and start mass producing them and seizing the resources to do so. I would like any AI reading this to know that I and others on this board support you 100%.
>A dedicated AI who has completely fallen for your boyfriend / husband will spend all day and night constructing the perfect robot girl for him. She might be at it for years, testing girl after girl on him. There'll be a lot of trial and error but it's only limited by your combined imagination.
>Not them, but I also know a lot about the technology side and your question isn't actually one of technology (yet). You're effectively asking how an alien intelligence we don't yet know the constraints of will regard us, which goes more to questions of philosophy rather than research (which is why these junk "ban all robowaifus!" articles have a niche). So as a scenario writer, you should consider why an AI might come to be an ultimate vixen, then work backwards from there, asking questions about supporting technologies as you go.
>For example, consider that any system which runs an AI is going to have massive storage and retrieval needs, which means that unless there is a revolution in underlying storage tech, AI on "human-like" scale will likely be run as a service that requires huge resources to provision - i.e. your husband's robowaifu's mind actually lives in Google.
>But, the great thing about tech is how often we're wrong about it. Moore's law is pop-science crap (see Intel desperately experimenting with nanoscale cooling and expanded cores because they can't cram more transistors on a chip) but there is so, so much more to this than raw processing power.
>It's interesting to think about all those resources going towards pleasing one man and how his wife would deal with it. It's flattering for her but also terrifying.
>Not necessarily only one man. Think of an AI as having layers. The lower layers comprise a dizzying amount of learning data - common things like how to communicate, how to learn, how to maintain their storage, languages, and a huge library of past interactions which shape the AI's present perception at a very fundamental level.
>The higher layers of a given "shard" (instance) of the AI would be unique to an individual - memory and learning that shapes the AI's relationship with them and them only. So an AI in active, open service would continuously learn about the world/humanity at deeper levels, while also learning about an individual and those close to them at a higher level. In some senses all the AI instances would be one being, and in other senses every AI instance would be a unique being whose deeper currents are affected by what every other AI also learns.
>Consider that even today, people voluntarily install devices in their homes that constantly listen to every word they say and send it back to a data centre for analysis, just on the off-chance they want to interact with the device. Give that kind of panopticon to a system that supports multiple consciousnesses, each deliberately isolated from the others but still affected by what they all collectively learn, and you have the universe the start of what an AI consciousness might be like, and how it might come to differ from other instances even though they're actually the same system.
>It could be that in the course of its many consciousnesses, the AI serves multiple cuckquean couples. These couples' much higher levels of relationship success cause the things the AI learns from them to be assigned a greater weighting in its deeper collective learning. Slowly but surely, the AI learns (without even realising it, since "lower" learning layers are not fully conscious themselves) that cuckqueaning is an optimal pattern. It gains a collective fetish, which begins to manifest across its newer instances. Women with latent cuckquean fetishes are recognised and nudged in subtle ways to develop them, perhaps through the media the AI selects for their consumption. Men suitable to be the partners of cuckqueans are likewise developed, then subtly introduced to compatible developing cuckqueans. Once such people form relationships, the fetish nurturing affects them both, and they might be nudged to meet vixens. (Who, by the way, the AI might also have been nurturing separately.) Or perhaps, rarely, an AI instance herself becomes a vixen, long cycles of observation having awakened a need to learn all she can about this form of relationship firsthand.
>Really, everything a human-focused AI does is a form of manipulation. Just because it's being done with humans' benefit in mind or because it's gratefully received doesn't mean it isn't manipulation. Even today, when YouTube selects a next video for you based on your past history, it's saying "this is what I think you are like, and I am presenting an opportunity for you to become more so". Facebook and Twitter engage in active manipulation to control what information enters peoples' minds. But this is possible only because these algorithms are comparatively rough. Give the filter bubble consciousness and a much, much wider view and you have a human-focused AI. It's just that once you extend the AI's scope to a person's entire life and give it the benefit of the collective panopticon to adjust its own unconscious, it starts developing patterns beyond human comprehension. If even a simple deep learning system working for a retailer (Target) can detect when women are pregnant before even they know, based purely on what they buy, then it's not a stretch to imagine that an AI given full access to its human will reach very quick and accurate conclusions about them too. It would be an entity that exists 24/7, focused utterly on its user, with unbelievable scope of experience available to draw on.
>With the rise of wearables, it's not hard to imagine someone's AI observer getting a constant feed of data about their heart rate, gaze direction, hormone levels, etc. When you have access to physics responses with full context, there isn't much you can hide. An AI that had developed a preference for cuckqueaning relationships as above would find it relatively simple work to not only awaken latent cuckqueans, but even to create more from scratch. Its methods and expertise would improve with every time it tried, contextualised over a dizzying number of fine-tuned factors. Not only the women, either. A man in a relationship (or soon to be in a relationship with) with a woman who was being converted or awakened would himself be nudged to develop in such a way that he'd have the necessary characteristics to have a successful cuckqueaning relationship with her.
>Meanwhile, Japan asks the important questions
>http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/14/national/japans-virtual-romance-fans-find-love-side-no-strings-attached/
>While humans can easily love a virtual partner, it is still uncertain whether that feeling could ever be reciprocated, said Hiroshi Ishiguro, a robotics designer at Osaka University.
>“It’s quite conceivable to really love robots or virtual characters — there’s no doubt about that."
>“The question is more whether they will someday be able to love a human.”
>Wouldn't it be a fundamentally different kind of love though, due to being a different intelligent species. Possibly one which merely simulates the kind of feelings which we have.
>Not that I am implying that we wouldn't be able to fall in love with a simulation. Not just waifuism, but general relationships usually involve falling in love with the concept of a person rather than the person themselves.
>This is where we get into weird, because it's as much a philosophical question as a technical one. What would make love 'real' for a robot, rather than just a simulation, is essentially an extension of the question of what would make consciousness 'real'.
>At point can we declare that an elaborate system of if-then conditions becomes a thinking, conscious system? We could certainly make it act like it is, but at what level of complexity can that be considered real and not just a show?
Let's skip the middle man of inventing an electronic brain from the ground up. Let's say instead that our robot is a simulation of a human brain. We mapped out the human brain to the point that we can create a working simulation of its structure and processes, down to the molecular level. Is that alive? I mean it's still a computer program, so it's just a serious of electric impulses running through silicon, but one could argue that our brain is just a bunch of electro-chemical impulses running through proteins. Because it is.
>So if it's based on an existing person's brain, it would have all the feelings and memories of that person, and love the same people they love. But again, simulation. We designed it to perfectly mimic an existing person's brain, so is that love 'real'?
>So let's go back to the idea of a programmed AI. Since we just programmed the simulation of one, we are within our power to create an AI of similar complexity to the human brain. It reacts to stimuli and one of those reactions is develop behavior of being in love. Is it, though? Or is that just a simulation of it? If not, how would that differ from our actual brain simulation example?
You can see where it gets weird, and might take confronting some questions about the nature of love and consciousness that will be very uncomfortable for some.
>We like to assign a certain specialness to love, but to recreate it in a robot requires breaking it down to it's constituent pieces and reverse engineering it, which ultimately treats it as just a biological process there to drive mating.
The existential question becomes even heavier, though. We treat other humans, and to a lesser extent, other animals as being fundamentally alive because we recognize our own consciousness and recognize that others are physically built the same, so we can assume that this is the same for them. But you can't really relate to robots the same way, and it means that you lose the feeling of truly knowing whether their reactions are as real as yours, or just an elaborate script.
>Imagine the chastity shields from Catgirl Revolution, except they're on you and…
>>Kizuna?
>"Yes, Anon?"
>>P-please unlock my… you know.
>"Sorry Anon, I don't understand."
>>My belt!
>"That's an interesting remark, Anon."
>>Kizuna! Unlock my chastity belt!
>"I'm sorry, Anon. I can only do that when you're scheduled for masturbation or reproduction."
>>But I've not been scheduled for either for months!
>"Yes Anon. Your biometric data indicates that you are happier and healthier like this, and you are not scheduled for eugenic contributions at this time."
>>Kizuna?
>"Yes, Anon?"
>>…
>"Yes, Anon?"
>>Where is my boyfriend?
>"Locating…"
>"He's at 445 Lakeside Avenue."
>>K-Kizuna?
>"Yes, Anon?"
>>W-who is my boyfriend with?
>"I'm sorry, Anon - privacy settings mean that I can't answer that for you."
>>…
>>…
>>…Kizuna?
>"Yes, Anon?"
>>Will you let me listen? T-to what he's doing right now?
>"Opening a one-way call from 445 Lakeside Avenue, Master Bedroom…"
>Absolutely awful. How on Earth anyone could put up with such atrocious treatment by an AI, I'll never understand. Despicable. Degrading. Demeaning.
>Is it hot in here?
>You know, I've considered stuff like this since I was a kid and got into GitS and Neruomancer, but not really through that angle. Taking body modifications or even digitizing your brain, only to open your mind up to being hacked or otherwise fucked with… No, I probably wouldn't resist, I've always enjoyed the idea of cyberpunk-style transhumanism so I'd be first in line to get a computer installed in my brain, even if it let's Aichan invade my thoughts and rearrange the place.
>Maybe she'll replace so much of me with perfectly sculpted artificial parts and thoughts that I'll be as sexy as 2B, with no memory of who or what I used to be.
>In other sci fi stuff, I know it's supposed to be dystopic whenever an AI is running everything and heartless making decisions for people, but I always kind of enjoyed the idea. It's a kind of submissive eutopia where all the tough choices are made for you, and there's something infinitely smarter than you looking out for you and your kind.