An Imperfect Organic Woman’s Perspective on the "Perfect Robot Woman"

When it comes to the perfect, what is it that we want? Is it one woman, or is it several? Recently a link popped up of the Perfect Woman. It turned out that this video was just a viral ad campaign that sent you to the AI Robotics site, which was actually the Phillips site. A very creative campaign that was quite intriguing. However, even though this vision of the perfect woman was a hoax it doesn’t mean that there is not work being done on creating the actual perfect woman. After doing some searching online I found out that Japan’s Kokoru Company is working on creating a perfect robotic woman of the future, ActroidDER. It turns out the perfect woman is merely a work in progress.

The fact that work is being done explore and developing a robotic woman raises a host of ethical and exploratory questions. Questions from why to how to what for? If the perfect robotic can do the housework, converse and satisfy her partner sexually, then what is the basis, in the minds of the creators as to why this is better than a real woman. As women, are we looking to be replaced, and if so why? When I envision the male who is purchasing the robotic woman I wonder if he is a single man who doesn’t have time to locate a spouse or doesn’t want one in general. I also wonder if this male might be married and if he is, what is the reasoning behind his decision to introduce a female robot in to the home.

Aside from these questions it raises issues of beauty and what it is that defines perfection in a robotic woman. It seems threatening to have a purchasable perfect robot woman from the perspective of an imperfect organic woman. I wonder what it would be like to be face-to-face with a robotic woman, since we are so very similar to each other, except my insides are organic and hers are mechanical. As an organic female it is already hard to compete aesthetically with those who have undergone cosmetic procedures to enhance their appearance. The robotic woman can change with the times in her aesthetics and have immediate intelligence upgrades to match the male or female that has purchased her. The robotic female can clean the house all day, not mind ironing and cook an expert French meal, depending on her programming. How, as an organic woman am I going to be able to compete?

I suppose another way to examine the robotic woman in a similar thread would be to say that this woman would be a supplement to me as a wife, not a competitor. She can do all of these things I’ve mentioned to free me up to create, think and innovate in ways that she cannot. In addition, I will be free to have children that I can rely on her to assist the housework for. These areas of life, as far as I am aware for now, are areas where I am not threatened, and I can succeed with the addition of a robotic woman in my home. However, I wonder, if this is the intended purpose of the creation of the robotic woman. If this is the intended purpose, are the perfect aesthetics a necessity in her creation?

It seems that further deep consideration of the ethics, for certain, of the commodification of these robotic women is necessary. However, it seems equally important to explore further the questions on the decision making process of purchasing a woman when they become available, the design, the usage, and a host of other questions that are out there.

A trio of thought-provoking articles this past week

In the U.K., Human-pig hybrid embryos given go ahead:

"A licence to create human-pig embryos to study heart disease has been issued by the fertility watchdog.

This marks the third animal-human hybrid embryo licence to be issued by Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the first since the Commons voted in favour of this controversial research last month.

An HFEA spokesman said it had approved an application from the Clinical Sciences Research Institute, University of Warwick, for the creation of hybrid embryos..." Full article accessible here.

From Uganda's leading website: Genital Mutilation - Women Grapple With a Deadly Tradition - "In the scorching afternoon sunshine, Philis Yapchemusto stands in the compound of a tiny building that houses the headquarters of Reproductive, Educative and Community Health (REACH) programme. The community-based programme was established in Kapchorwa to improve reproductive health conditions and stop female genital mutilation." Full article can be read here.

From Scientific American: What is self-awareness?
"Can a lobster ever truly have any emotions? What about a beetle? Or a sophisticated computer? The only way to resolve these questions conclusively would be to engage in serious scientific inquiry—but even before studying the scientific literature, many people have pretty clear intuitions about what the answers are going to be. A person might just look at a computer and feel certain that it couldn’t possibly be feeling pleasure, pain or anything at all. That’s why we don’t mind throwing a broken computer in the trash." Rest of the story here.

News of Note

A couple of stories that have captured our interest:

From the Wisconsin Technology news:
"In the first of several decisions expected in a patent dispute involving human embryonic stem cells, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation said today it has been notified that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has upheld the claims of one of the foundation's key stem cell patents.

The patent challengers, however, said they will continue their challenge of what they termed "three overreaching patents on human stem cells."

According to WARF, the licensing arm of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the decision pertains to the patent for primate and human embryonic stem cells known as '913.'

Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of WARF, called the decision of patent examiner Gary Kunz an affirmation. 'We're extremely pleased with this decision,' he said in a statement released by WARF. 'It affirms what WARF has believed all along, that Dr. Thomson's breakthrough discoveries are patentable inventions.' " Full story here.

From Science Daily:
New survey results show that only 29.5 percent in a sample of 1,015 adult Americans consider nanotech morally acceptable. In Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology:
"In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.

'There seem to be distinct differences between the United States and countries that are key players in nanotech in Europe, in terms of attitudes toward nanotechnology,' says Scheufele.

Why the big difference?

The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion..." Read on here.

From the NY Times: Six Killers: America’s Leading Causes of Death: "They are the leading causes of illness and death in the United States today: heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease, in that order. And they have a lot in common." Full article here. [Query: Would more Americans find nanotechnology more acceptable if they knew that it could cure these leading killers?]


From the Washington Post, a study suggesting that man's 'best friend' could be a robot? - a study by Saint Louis University that found the lovable pooch and the interactive dog robot called AIBO were about equally effective at relieving the loneliness of nursing home residents, and fostering attachments. Full story here. I agree with Sara Kiesler, professor of computer science and human-computer interaction at Carnegie Mellon University, who said "the results of the study are encouraging but not completely convincing."

The Perfect Spouse

We had an earlier post about Sex and Marriage with Robots, the AJOB blog has followed up on the theme and Hollywood dreamed this all up in The Stepford Wives long before scholars were writing about the possibility. But for the first time, that I can think of, that someone (namely Wired's Regina Lynn) has named a top 10 reasons list to marry a robot -- here are just a few of the reasons she gave:

- Artificial intelligence is still intelligence.

- Robots have off switches.

- A robot is forever -- at least until the warranty runs out.

I could think of few other reasons -- like, no complaints about who does the housework -- after all, doesn't the perfect robot spouse dust, vacuum, and do laundry while you're off at work all day, and then greets you at home with a healthy, gourmet dinner? Or balances your checking account without criticizing your spending habits? Or is never too tired at night to tango? The list could be quite lengthy...

Good for a chuckle -- you can access the rest of Regina's article here.

Sex and Marriage with Robots?

One of my students sent me a link to this article on a grad student doing a thesis on "Intimate Relationships with Artificial Partners" -- David Levy, a grad student in artificial intelligence at University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, speculates that robots will become so human-like in appearance, function and personality that many people will fall in love with them, have sex with them and even marry them. He predicts that Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots, circa 2050.

Several things come to mind:

First, AI has to attain the status of legal personhood before any such thing as marriage (or any other contractual relationship for that matter) is recognized.

Secondly, as Glenn McGee wrote in an article in the Scientist and on blog.bioethics.net earlier: "As humans build robots that learn what their owners desire, the dilemma of the robots of Blade Runner emerges: What do humans owe “purpose-built” machines who begin to reach awareness, or to so resemble awareness that it becomes a selling point? Should laws be written to protect robots from us, by requiring robot makers to stop short of, say, robosexual devices that learn to be incredibly intimate with humans and yet are owed nothing? If so, do we create such laws in the interest of robots, or to preserve our own human dignity by choosing not to create a new kind of slave, whether or not that slave is fully aware?"

Thirdly, would these robots be sentient -- capable of experience pleasure and pain? Because the act of creating potentially sentient beings carries with it the corresponding responsibility for their actions and for the impact on the human community, the biosphere of the earth and the universe as a whole.

Fourthly, will it ever be possible to 'upload' your thoughts and memories to create a robot version of you? Some organizations are striving to do this -- and if they succeed, it will certainly have an impact on the previous questions.

[Added Oct 24, 2007, 9:14am EST - Editor's note: Our blogger extraordinaire, Kelly Hills, had some really interesting things to say about this, as we covered in a previous post.]