Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Siege
Ok, granted that we're not this far along, and that I haven't watched the documentary, but this leads us down a rather slippery slope.
How life like do these dolls have to be for it to be "ok" to develop an attachment to it?
Let's say I created a doll like the ones in the video. The only catch is that it can move, can change expression and has a digitalized personality. Let's say that this doll is now life like in every possible way (including things i didn't mention) except for the actual possession of well... life. How is it different from developing an attachment to a human except for the knowledge that this is a bunch of circuits with a computer program telling it what to do?
|
As a computer engineer, that would be a major development. But, I see things heading that way. And I wouldn't be surprised if these dolls got some sophisticated animatronics and AI in the next 20 years. Even I would love to work on this project. If I could quit my day job, I probably would try and put a few computers, motors, actuators, heaters, batteries, sensors, cameras, microphones + whatever else inside and program it all.
Your question about how life like do they need to be is an interesting one. There have been a few people that have looked into it and figured out that there is a line between where it looks just fake enough so you know it is fake to where it looks just as real as a normal person. When it looks fake, either it is obvious or it might just be a little creepy. When it is realistic enough, there is no difference between the two and people accept them. We are a long way away from that point though.
It would be an interesting sociological question though. If something like a cylon or android existed that could walk, talk, and do everything else a real person could do, how many guys (and gals) would choose to go to the store and pick up their ideal match, instead of playing the dating game.