Android Spouses or Real Human Spouses: Which do you Prefer?

[Iron Lightning]

I... uh... don't know how to respond to this post other than to say that you should totally illustrate this concept as a desktop wallpaper image. That would be freakin' sweet.

funny you mention that...i do have a lowly webcomic i work on (every now and then) and one character is a centaur....so...i actually could do something like that.
.....now that i read this, i almost feel ashamed....almost.

Dude-bro, you totally ought to post a link to your webcomic, and then make a comic or something about your android-grey zebra-centaur idea thingy... I'd read it for the spectacle alone.

Just like in that odd anime girl thread, you can't beat a real woman.

Fixed... I hope.

 

[Jark212]

Real spouse. You can't have a kid with a robot.

Pretty much this...

If someone married a android I'd have no problem with it, but I want kids some day and that's not something a android can provide. While it might be pretty awesome to date a android I would not pursue a long term relationship with one...

 

[Wolfenbarg]

I want a lover to challenge me, not to serve me. Androids could probably make the perfect hookers, but they definitely couldn't be the perfect spouses.

 

[gostlyfantom]

why would you marry an android? i could see keeping one for sex but marriage?

 

[iblis666]

Whelp, I haven't done a thread in quite a while. Note that I'm referring to Nexus-6 style (albeit longer lasting) androids which are indistinguishable from humans. So which do you prefer? Assume that you have the option to program the android with perfect competence, although the android in question will be limited by Von Neumann architecture [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture].

Here's my humble opinion: As androids are artificial constructs they theoretically have the ability to be the perfect companion. However, the only way an android could achieve perfection in my eyes would be if I created her which, paradoxically, would make her imperfect because I would then know every reaction she would have ahead of time. Androids created by other people for their own use are invariably designed to be amiable to their creators, also making them imperfect companions for me. An androids designed by commission for me would invariably come out imperfect because no one knows me better than I do.

Real girls, on the other hand, are almost randomly generated and with roughly 3.5 billion of them it's statistically likely that at least one real girl is now or will become a perfect companion for me. However, it's extremely unlikely that I will ever meet my hypothetical perfect companion. Still, my perfect companion probably exists as a real girl and probably can not exist as an android, therefore real girls are superior companions to androids.

Edit: I forgot to mention, the androids in question are indistinguishable from humans, which also mean that they (optionally) share our ability to reproduce.

you had me at the ability to reproduce other wise id have just went to all the trouble to find a human to love but as im lazy this sounds much better

 

[Wisteso]

Assume that you have the option to program the android with perfect competence, although the android in question will be limited by Von Neumann architecture [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture].

LOL. This was cute. Totally unrealistic but still very cute.

Here's my humble opinion: As androids are artificial constructs they theoretically have the ability to be the perfect companion. However, the only way an android could achieve perfection in my eyes would be if I created her which, paradoxically, would make her imperfect because I would then know every reaction she would have ahead of time. Androids created by other people for their own use are invariably designed to be amiable to their creators, also making them imperfect companions for me. An androids designed by commission for me would invariably come out imperfect because no one knows me better than I do.

Why do you assume that you shouldn't be able to predict your perfect partner? Why do you presume that, just because you designed the complex "system", you can predict the behavior of it. In a high-level sense, sure, but if you've ever designed an intelligent system you'd know how wrong your statement is.

 

[Fawcks]

I'd say human, but after how my last relationship where I was engaged ended so horribly...

Fuck humans.

Robot all the way! She'll never leave me. No matter what! If she breaks, we can rebuild her!

 

[DocBalance]

Humans all the way, Hoss.

Also, is it weird my captcha for this post was "These, Hossibly?" I think the Escapist is reading my mind >.>

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Does it really matter?
Sure, you don't get kids with androids, you also don't get any STDs...

 

[x EvilErmine x]

Whelp, I haven't done a thread in quite a while. Note that I'm referring to Nexus-6 style (albeit longer lasting) androids which are indistinguishable from humans. So which do you prefer? Assume that you have the option to program the android with perfect competence, although the android in question will be limited by Von Neumann architecture [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture].

Here's my humble opinion: As androids are artificial constructs they theoretically have the ability to be the perfect companion. However, the only way an android could achieve perfection in my eyes would be if I created her which, paradoxically, would make her imperfect because I would then know every reaction she would have ahead of time. Androids created by other people for their own use are invariably designed to be amiable to their creators, also making them imperfect companions for me. An androids designed by commission for me would invariably come out imperfect because no one knows me better than I do.

Real girls, on the other hand, are almost randomly generated and with roughly 3.5 billion of them it's statistically likely that at least one real girl is now or will become a perfect companion for me. However, it's extremely unlikely that I will ever meet my hypothetical perfect companion. Still, my perfect companion probably exists as a real girl and probably can not exist as an android, therefore real girls are superior companions to androids.

Edit: I forgot to mention, the androids in question are indistinguishable from humans, which also mean that they (optionally) share our ability to reproduce.

Not necessarily true, programing of that complexity would inevitably turn up complicated results that could not be predicted ahead of time, chaos theory shows us that simple systems that obey simple rules which if left to run produce complex and unpredictable results. In short you could program this android to be the perfect partner but because of emergent behavior you would not get the personalty you programed, the system would develop it's own rules, see the concept of 'Langton's ant' for more information on this process.

On Topic
Human all the way

 

[pubbing]

I would like to keep my human wife but sometimes I would love to replace her brain with a computer.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Whichever one makes a better companion. If that's an android (which would probably be sentient), then it's an android. If it's a human, then it's a human. If it's a xeno, then it's a xeno. I like to take things on case by case basis.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

Absolutely human. The challenges are what makes it all worth it. Nothing is as good as the real thing.

 

[GenericAmerican]

I would prefer human, unless the android was programmed with the most recent specifications in algorithmic intermodular design and managed to hit .88 deltas on the Gaussian Retrodacter Scale. I would also want it to include the latest I-39s from IBM in case the Flankel decrypter in the Floyd interface was somehow faulty. That could cause the anti-thermide components to decompose, and the self-injecting electromagnetic shafts to collapse. The results of that would obviously be cause for concern, as the galvanic membrane could self-destruct.

Also, in terms of AI, the android would have to be able to work with dynamically programmed B-Trees, or the self-ionizing electrode transmuter would eventually collapse and produce a synapse in the artificial diagnostic synthesizer. The newest I-39 module from IBM seems to address this issue, as the accumulator array doesn't collapse upon reaching 3.9GHz like the I-38s did. I tried submersing the I-38 in a copper solution last night and it self-destructed, which could cause problems. How else would I bathe my android spouse where it can go through the necessary redox reactions to prevent the oxidation of its essential flanges?

Amen, this guy people^ knows what he is talking about. Those I-38's were not all they were cracked up to be.

 

[ABLb0y]

You ever play Haunting Ground? Well, if you have, Daniella was created for that purpose, and... well, she didn't take it too well...

 

[Ouroboros0977]

Real spouse since I have the sneaking suspicion that I have already met my perfect partner (random chance can suck it when I am around).

 

[Iron Lightning]

Not necessarily true, programing of that complexity would inevitably turn up complicated results that could not be predicted ahead of time, chaos theory shows us that simple systems that obey simple rules which if left to run produce complex and unpredictable results. In short you could program this android to be the perfect partner but because of emergent behavior you would not get the personalty you programed, the system would develop it's own rules, see the concept of 'Langton's ant' for more information on this process.

On Topic
Human all the way

You say that such results "could not be predicted ahead of time," this is incorrect, you should have said "might not be predicted ahead of time." Consider your own example: Langton's ant. The ant's behavior is perfectly predictable ahead of time because at no point does it disobey its own rules. The simplest version of Langton's ant always creates the "highway" pattern because that is the logical result of its rules, this pattern does not suggest the development of any free will or intelligence in the ant. Also consider that the initial conditions of our hypothetical android would be quite well known. The android will follow its programing at all times therefore, the initial conditions being known (as they would normally be,) the android's behavior could be perfectly predicted by anyone with sufficient knowledge and competence. The emergent behavior of an android is quite predictable because (theoretically unlike a human) it is incapable of making a choice.

Assume that you have the option to program the android with perfect competence, although the android in question will be limited by Von Neumann architecture [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture].

LOL. This was cute. Totally unrealistic but still very cute.

What the hell do you mean by that? All hypothetical situations are necessarily a little unrealistic because they are not actually real. I see that you're new to the site's forums, so let me give a piece of advice so that you may avoid the banhammer. If you have an issue with someone's point of view please do not just just bluntly insult them, please give valid criticisms or none at all.

Why do you assume that you shouldn't be able to predict your perfect partner? Why do you presume that, just because you designed the complex "system", you can predict the behavior of it. In a high-level sense, sure, but if you've ever designed an intelligent system you'd know how wrong your statement is.

I do not assume that I am unable to determine the nature of my perfect partner. One aspect my perfect partner would have is free will, a characteristic which Von Neumann androids can never have.
Of course I can predict the behavior of any system which follows a set of rules and never deviates from them. The emergent behavior of a system comes from a set of rule which do not change therefore I can predict what the system will do with sufficient knowledge and competence (see Lanton's ant.)
Excuse me, have you designed an intelligent system? Do you have a true AI sitting in your garage? True artificial intelligence is currently outside of our realm of science. Also note that our hypothetical android is not an AI and is just a complex Von Neumann Machine.

 

[Sn1P3r M98]

Human, of course. No matter how advanced androids get, I'll always prefer a human spouse.

 

[Ekonk]

Human. Because I am human. That's how it works.

Sure, an android can be the perfect spouse. Imperfection however, is important. Perfection is an illusive and terrible thing.

Android brothels however, which means we're just talking sex and not a meaningful relationship, would probably become a reality.

 

[RaphaelsRedemption]

I would prefer human, unless the android was programmed with the most recent specifications in algorithmic intermodular design and managed to hit .88 deltas on the Gaussian Retrodacter Scale. I would also want it to include the latest I-39s from IBM in case the Flankel decrypter in the Floyd interface was somehow faulty. That could cause the anti-thermide components to decompose, and the self-injecting electromagnetic shafts to collapse. The results of that would obviously be cause for concern, as the galvanic membrane could self-destruct.

Also, in terms of AI, the android would have to be able to work with dynamically programmed B-Trees, or the self-ionizing electrode transmuter would eventually collapse and produce a synapse in the artificial diagnostic synthesizer. The newest I-39 module from IBM seems to address this issue, as the accumulator array doesn't collapse upon reaching 3.9GHz like the I-38s did. I tried submersing the I-38 in a copper solution last night and it self-destructed, which could cause problems. How else would I bathe my android spouse where it can go through the necessary redox reactions to prevent the oxidation of its essential flanges?

That is the best summary of the technical issues facing the creation of android spouses I have seen here. I also am worried about the effect of copper solution upon my IBM I-38s!

As such, I'm going to go with human.