• zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    19 hours ago

    All those things could be more readily solved by just legalizing and de-stigmatizing sex work. AI sex bots actively harm that industry by taking work away from humans, just like how a hypothetical AI acting bot would harm the acting industry.

    • blarghly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      The work could be done cheaper by robots, presumably. And sure, I’m all for legalized sex work. But if a machine can do it better, faster, and cheaper - why not? Fleshlights exist - are you opposed to those because they take work from sex workers? Ludditism always fails - if human sex workers are still around after we have fully functioning sex bots, it is because they can provide something the bots can’t. And I think this will be the case - at the end of the day, we know on a deep level that there is a difference between fucking a bot and fucking a real human.

      • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Just because we can automate something, doesn’t mean we should. At least not until we live in a moneyless society.

        • blarghly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          You’re really setting yourself up for disappointment here. You’ve created a dichotomy - either we should avoid automating things which can be automated (which isn’t going to happen - consumers like low prices and shareholders like higher profits), or we should transition to a moneyless society (which is also not going to happen, money is useful and everyone likes it).

        • blarghly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Morally? I don’t think there is a moral component here. It’s like saying earthquakes are morally wrong. Technological innovation happens when its time comes, and trying to stop it is akin to trying to stop an earthquake. Sure, you can choose not to use the tech if you don’t want to, but others will. You can form comminities which agree not to use the tech (like the Amish), but those outsude your communities will use the tech. You might even get your government to ban the tech - but then you end up with the war on drugs, or south america style inflation, or North Korean levels of policing.

          If you want to wax poetic about the wonderful work of hand-weaving textiles, be my guest. But I will very happyly wear a machine-woven shirt for a fraction of the cost so that I can spend my money on something else that I value more.

    • P1k1e@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I mean your right, but if I were to guess which is more likely, sex bots takes the win.