ChineseChef

What is annoying? That companies are competing for your business? That they are trying to release better products to entice you to buy their product? Do you prefer to have only a single option, with no chance for a better product ever?

Does this fall under the "why does anyone care about what other people do with their own hard earned money" argument? Everyone thinks spending money on something is dumb. We waste tons of money on computer stuff (I'm looking at you RGB everything). Someone wants to buy a sex doll, why does anyone else care or get a say in that? And as others said, we hashed this all out like 2 weeks ago.

The companies that supply the labor and tech for the security theater sure are winning. And the idiot masses somehow still haven't learned that this stuff does nothing.

I think you underestimate the upgrade and dlc options that will be available for your AI sexbot. Sexbots will likely be like a high end computer, or toy car (think jeep or track car), there will always be tons of ways to trick our your sexbot. Want different skin colors? Hair colors? hair styles? Maybe you want your sexbot to speak in different languages? Have different characters it can play? Maybe you want bunny ears for it? Or wings? Different outfits? Your sexbot will be a money pit like any other fancy toy. Not that you won't love customizing your bot, just like people love customizing their computers/cars/everything. But it will not be a one time purchase, lol.

That's mostly what I wonder. Will some groups be singled out, because in spite of what people want to think, they are actually a problem? Will we be surprised by who the AI thinks is actually a real problem? Will this designation by the AI be used as justification to oppress those designated groups? Then the big question of is it the group or is it the circumstance? Will the AI recognize that the problem isn't group X, but people from group X with life situation Y, living in area Z? Will it start to tell us things about ourselves that we may not have wanted to admit?

So, what did your dog do to warrant such ill will?

Main thing holding lots of people back is the fear of spending a huge amount and some advancement coming along in 5 years that cuts the price in half and doubles the performance. The tech is still new, so spending 50k, expecting to make it back in 30 years isn't bad. But spending 50k only to have a system that is twice as good come out before you have even barely begun to pay off your system is disheartening. Plus, like you said, 50k is not cheap, especially for old construction. New construction it definitely makes sense though.

Yah, Surviving hail is not too hard. But when the roof itself gets ripped off under the tiles, doesn't much matter what they can handle.

I think they were always comparing to tile roofing, ceramic or stone. It would be nearly impossible to compete with regular shingles, I mean, they are basically just gravel and tar stuck to some paper.

Makes one wonder, will the system be called racist/sexist if the AI determines that a specific race or gender are more likely to be a problem? This group should be held because they cause more issue, that group should be let go because they more reliably show up to court? If we truly gave the reins to the AI, would the rich no longer be able to buy their way out of jail? If the AI truly found that a specific group is a problem, how will people react?

It's cheaper when you factor in that regular tiles do nothing, and these produce electricity. But I don't think they were ever planning to be cheaper to purchase compared to regular tiles. They simply always used clever/deceptive marketing to make it sound like they would.

A lot of the problem right now is likely because its a "new" thing. We have had men and women for a long time. And for most people, they were raised being told you are one or the other. The idea of changing from one to the other has been around forever as well, but hasn't really been an option until recently (medically/historically speaking). So people are still trying to figure out if this new thing is real or if its a fad. Plus there is a ton of push on both sides to make the issue black and white. People want an easy answer. I don't think it will get better until the people in charge of these things grew up with the idea of it being around. Which is how societies change, good or bad, by having the older folks die off.

The issue with men vs women in non physical games is usually much more about availability, early introduction, and early support. Men are also much more aggressive and competitive on average. This can be extremely intimidating when at the early stages, most women want to have fun. Where most men also want to have fun, they often define fun as winning.

I agree that times are becoming more open, but it sure is happening slowly. If you want to look into the effects and such of female divisions, chess is a great "historical" example. They went back and forth a lot in the chess community about having female divisions. Also, they don't really "let them win" in the sense that they make it easy for them. They simply put them in more even rankings, which they wouldn't be able to do with mixed sexes.

It is completely a handout. BUT, if we didn't do it, there would be way way less women playing at all. SO, you have the option of giving them their own league where they can play and win against each other. OR you can make them play with the big boys, lose more often than not, and quit early. So, you have to decide, do you want more women to play or less?

Same reason they have female only chess, and other mind games. Male competitiveness is usually higher than female. And males often start at earlier ages, thus have more experience. Combine this with the usual push away from these kinds of mind games by generic societal pressures, and you get less women overall with less experience. This means you are drawing from a smaller pool of often less experienced players. This means most women spend a lot of time losing in male dominated games. Which is often discouraging. Which pushes the women away, so less women, so they get less time and more unwanted attention, which discourages more women, vicious cycle and all that. So by having women only leagues, that means a woman has to win. So that means they get a chance to be the "best". Which has encouraged more women to join these kinds of games. Which is what everyone wants. So when the women are good enough, they can join in and compete against the men. But until then, they have a place they can go and be not as good as the average male in that game, but still get to have a good time winning and losing. Which encourages more women to play.

They do women only tournaments to encourage women to play. Usually this helps because they often have less experience, due to various reasons, so they are often not as good as the men that are completing in the male/open leagues. These women only tournaments allow the women a chance to win, which encourages them to play more, thus getting more women involved. And when/if the women feel they are ready or able to step in to the male dominated leagues, they are usually allowed to do so. Very few sports/leagues actually have male only teams/divisions, the women usually just can't even pretend to compete well enough to "make the cut".

The illegal immigrant angle is slightly different. Since it is based off the fact that their mere presence is a crime in itself. They are here illegally, so what they may or may not have done is irrelevant to their being here illegally. Whether they should be allowed to be here and what changes should be made to immigration laws is kind of irrelevant to whether or not they are currently breaking immigration law as it is now. But for my argument, in relation to this particular case, its more akin to where if the state/gov can't prove you have some info/doc/file on your computer, they should simply have to let you go. As they are unable to show evidence that you have the item in question. Before digital encryption, there wasn't really a lock box that couldn't be forced open by the authorities. But now with modern encryption, it can be feasibly "impossible" to break the encryption on a device/file. So for this case, they are basically unable to prove what files are on this phone. And since they can't crack it within a reasonable amount of time, they are forcing the owner to unlock the phone using information only stored in the owner's mind. So the balance has shifted from the state finding and collecting evidence without your involvement, to forcing you to provide the evidence of your potential wrongdoings. A great argument I saw for what the authorities should be able to force you to do is the "coma test". If you were in a coma or otherwise unable to respond, would the authorities be able to collect the evidence without you? Basically, you should never have to do or say anything in the assistance of the state to aid in their prosecution of you. Slippery slope time. This will start with forcing people to unlock or decrypt devices/files in a court setting. Then it will become common practice for trials to involve unlocking devices/accounts. Then the police will get authority to force an unlock in specific situations. Then it will start to be abused and/or simply used for common situations. Eventually, getting pulled over for speeding could involve you being forced to give the police officer full access to your phone and car (once they become more automated/integrated). Eventually, they could simply mandate some kind of backdoor access to all devices, which is bad for everyone because hackers will gain access to it.

I am aware of the concept and its current implementation. What I am saying is that the judicial system in the US seems to be switching from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt. While it is happening very slowly, it seems to be happening none the less, which is a frightening trend.

While this sounds great, when you are facing a potential few years in jail for your crimes, or some insane amount of years for obstruction of justice. You may just give in, which is what they are hoping for. And unfortunately, they have the guns so they make the rules. And unless you are rich, those rules are only there to fuck you over.

My fear with this kind of ruling, besides the obvious invasion of privacy, is what happens if you don't know or can't remember the info? What if they want access to a device or account that you used long enough ago that you forgot the password? What if you never had the password? How will they reconcile "I forgot" with "tell us or go to jail forever"? For reference there is the PA cop that has been in jail for 18 months now because he won't decrypt his HDDs. There is also another case of a woman (I think, would have to find the case again), that has been in jail for 16 years now because she won't say something. Like others have asked, what happens when the powers that be think you did it, but don't have any proof at all, so they demand full access to everything you have? In an effort to make you prove you are innocent. Scary times when the justice system starts officially switching from "gov't must prove/show guilt" to "suspect must prove innocence".

If we are just talking about sex robots, that can't do anything else, I don't think those will be a problem at all. Even if they can "hold a conversation", they won't be mainstream until the can do a lot more. It just won't be worth it for enough people to be more than a fancy sex doll of today. The issues will come in once the robots are good enough to do all the stuff people in this thread are talking about. When the robot can be a sex bot, but also cook food, clean the house, move around like a normal enough person, hold a conversation. That is when we will start to have problems, when the robot can truly replace another human being in your life.

I agree there will be massive social ramifications for "human replacement" AI/robots. (not as good as people, but good enough that people buy them to supplement what they aren't getting). That said, if we have robots/AI good enough that people are using them as human replacements, I am pretty sure they should be good enough to help take care of the elderly in a day to day sense. The risk here is extreme isolation from human contact, which I am not sure how to get around for those who chose to just exclude themselves.

I am curious why it is harmful? Most arguments stating its bad are based on the current economic model of the young working to support the old and their spending habits "supporting" the economy. To me, this is lunacy incarnate. Why do we want to keep growing the population when we are on the eve of replacing a huge percentage of our workforce with AI/robots? I agree that overcrowding isn't really a problem. But I wouldn't say we need more people. If our entire economic model is based of constant population growth, at some point it will no longer be sustainable. We need a different model, not based on birthing more workers to ever feed our debt based economy.

Or like the way everything is going these days, it just starts sharing your "likes" to all your social media platforms, lol.