There are projects to simulate brains inside computers, and there are occasional stories about robotic sex toys. Naturally, a human brain is harder to simulate than one with fewer synapses, so simple animal minds will be in silico before humans.
What happens when you put them together? A perfect copy of your lover, their mind as well as their body (as it was at their peak of health). Of course, realistic reproductions of their body would be prohibitively expensive right now, but while I'm mind-dumping futurism, what if the outer layer was a genetically engineered plant?
Would this be bestiality? Would the fight over the ethics of it be the first part of a campaign for A.I. rights? And, more to the point for this subreddit, would you consider do that to resurrect your lover?
I'm pretty sure that human minds will come a decade after dog minds at the latest. It wouldn't be THAT much harder to simulate a human once you've gotten past the big hurdles, it would just require more computing power.
This is still long enough for animal and AI issues to become intertwined. For example, unfortunately it's quite likely that sex with robot animals would be banned pretty quickly... but I could easily see a blanket ban on ALL sex with robots being implemented.
As for if I would resurrect my lover? My answer is a cautious, but enthusiastic yes. I would need to be insured that that the resurrection wouldn't alter them and would give them a good quality of life and such. I do have a feeling that we'll have biological near-immortality before fully functioning animal-level AI though.
If Moore's law holds, it should only be 6½ years between dog and human. If the optimists are correct in their assumptions about how much detail the simulations need, then mice brains may already be simulated in 25%-real-time on high end graphics cards. Of course, we will only find out if they are correct or not when someone figures out how to copy an existing brain into a computer and then runs the simulation to see if it has the same memories as the organic original…
This is because they are using the GPU sort of like a CPU correct?
Yup. Mainly because the record for a home GPU is 11.5 Teraflops whereas the record for a home CPU is only about 160 gigaflops.
The idea of simulating a mind in a computer is quite interesting. I was going to reply with 'okay, that would be great' but then I remembered watching an episode of Black Mirror. Be Right Back (S02E01) to be precise. You don't have to watch all the other episodes to watch this one. I'm not going to give away anything other than that if this question intrigues you, this episode answers it for you. Honestly. Watch it.
I don't think this would be considered bestiality because one could program in consent. For example you could program the robot to always be in heat. I mean nobody would buy a robot animal if it was 100% like the original. One would pay only if the robot had "extras" like changeable penis/flare size, always in heat, less droppings/urine ect
I'm not sure that's the case. One can "program in consent" to an organic brain, if you know what you're doing (drugs, for example), but doing so is explicitly not consensual in the UK.
I expect no droppings and no pee would be the default, and only those into scat and watersports would pay for the upgrade.
Have you been watching America's finest news source?
Anyways, I would be hesitant to accept AI as lovers, especially as replacements for those who have passed on. No matter how closely you can simulate it, the whole thing seems rather hollow, and perhaps even disrespectful.
If others want to pursue something like this when we have the technology, then fine, I'm willing to hear them out. But personally, I wouldn't want to be part of it.
What about cloning technology? Could one use the dna from a dead horse, to make a robot horse that is very similar?
One could certainly try.
I don't mean to say this is wrong for everybody. There are certainly appealing aspects, and defeating death has been a highly sought after goal throughout history. I'm just saying it's not right for me, and when you get down to it, it's probably a matter of taste more than anything.
Hah! Nope, never seen that video before. (I'm replying having seen only the title :P)
Personally, I don't believe in the soul, so I think that a sufficiently detailed copy of a brain is the same person as the original at the time of the copy. If you do believe in the soul, then it clearly can't work like that.
I'd copy myself into a robot dog if I could :)
I don't want to get too specific here for anonymity's sake, but perhaps I should mention that I make a living in the field of technology. Now I'm not much of a programmer myself, but I've watched what some of these people can do, and it truly is remarkable. From handy apps to innovative games, there are brilliant minds creating brilliant things out there.
The subject of artificial intelligence has come up before. While it's not impossible in theory, there's a common problem that arises. A computer will do exactly what it's programmed to; it's as perfect as you make it. Living creatures don't quite work that way. There's needless variability, there are illogical shortcuts, and there are functions which we would probably be better without; we're flawed. One of the problems with creating artificial intelligence (Aside from the daunting nature of the task itself) is figuring out to what extent we should fix that discrepancy between cold computers and living creatures.
I wouldn't say I believe in the soul, at least, not in a spiritual sense. But I do believe in a biological X factor, and for better or worse, I'm not comfortable with letting go of it quite yet.
Switching minds would be awesome. I'd switch mine into a stallion's body, and breed mares.
I agree. No matter how close the simulation is, it just wouldn't be the same... I would rather let my partner (and my memories of them) rest in peace instead of trying to recreate/replace them.
This would be bestiality, technically, since it's still with a nonhuman. As for A.I. rights... that and animal rights are already being discussed in the same contexts. I went to this conference, where the first day was just Peter Singer's keynote (starting in the evening), the second was all about animals, and the third went into transhumanism and A.I. rights. Pretty neat to see those ideas connected.
For resurrecting my lover? Probably not, because at that point it's a designer lover, and I could likely make changes for the better (more intelligence, better personality). The copy would be great, but why stop there?
That's an excellent insight. I'd not thought of that, but it's a very reasonable thing to do… except for the whole "ship of theseus" problem of identity that goes with it.
Also, I've just read through some of the abstracts on that conference. Sounds very interesting!
Wouldn't virtual reality be much better and more practical?
More practical, but not "better" — last I checked, virtual reality could only do images and sounds, not the tactile sensations of intercourse. Nor wet dog smell, which I love.
I meant more like 100% virtual reality with all five senses.
Right now that's not practical. Once it is practical, it will probably be vastly better than reality.