Tech headlines screamed as if they were announcing the arrival of the latest threat to humanity posed by artificial intelligence since combat robots. The movement, led by academics Kathryn Richardson and Eric Billing, argues that the development of sex doll robots should be stopped because it exacerbates inequality between men and women.

There are enough gender stereotypes, ingrained sexism and sexual objectification in society.but forbidden to develop sex doll robot Seems short-sighted, even unpopular.

Existing research on sex and robotics often focuses on the superficial exploration of human attachment, popularized in films like Her and Ex Machina: a male-dominated, male-centric machine called AI sex doll robot, usually without regard to gender equality.

David Levy’s pioneering work, based on earlier research on teleinteractions — remote sex toys operated over the Internet — describes a society that is increasingly likely to embrace sex doll robots. For him, sex is a pattern that can manifest in a human-robot relationship.

A new sex robot

Richardson doesn’t like the prospect, and to the extent she’s right, that claim should be questioned. Richardson in her recent paper: A discussion of gender ethics in sex robotics. In the process of gender recognition and anthropomorphism of a robot, its identity is often assumed, but so far few have considered it.

Humans’ relationship with man-made objects can be traced back to ancient Greek mythology, where the statue of the sculptor Pygmalion was brought back to life by a kiss. It is the stuff of myth and science fiction—part of the history we write, part of the future we imagine. Feminist thinker Donna Haraway’s famous 1991 Cyborg Manifesto laid the modern foundation for serious thinking about a post-gender world, with prescient thinking about human sexuality.

But just as we should avoid introducing existing gender and gender biases into future technology, we should also avoid introducing established caution. A lack of openness to sex and sexual identity has been a source of enormous spirituality and suffering for many people and society as a whole for centuries. This dishonesty is very harmful.

The movement tries to avoid the sexual objectification of sex robots, but at the cost of politicizing them and doing so in a narrow way. If robots shouldn’t have artificial sex, why should they have a narrow, unthinking sense of morality? It’s one thing to have a conversation and summarize technological developments, it’s another to ask for silence before anyone has a chance to speak.

Sex doll robots have applications far beyond his definition of “machines used in female form as sexual objects, in place of human companions or sexual tools”. We impose our beliefs on these machines, anthropomorphize them, with our own biases and assumptions. Sex doll robots, like so much of the technology we use today, were designed by men, for men.

Sex machines are made by humans

But sexbots also allow us to explore questions without the constraints of humans. The machine is a blank slate that gives us the opportunity to reimagine. The internet has opened up a world where people can explore their gender identities and politics, and build communities that share their perspectives. With the help of technology, society is rethinking the gender/gender binary.

Sex doll robots can transcend sex. What is the range of treatment? Not only for individual therapy (after all, buddies and care robots are already in use), but also for those who break the law. VR technology has been tested psychologically and has been proposed as a treatment for sex offenders. For ethical reasons, sex doll robots could be an effective way to advance this approach.

Opposing development is short-sighted. Rather than calling for a total ban, why not build on this to explore new ideas of inclusivity, legitimacy and social change? It’s time to get rid of machine hegemony and all associated biases.

At present, if we lose control of this problem, then we will face another set of problems. Fear of the still-nascent branch of artificial intelligence is a reason to shape it, not ban it.