Will sweet sexy sexbots and “carnally-neutral industrial robots” unite to destroy civilization? Woman-hating “pickup artist” and wannabe white supremacist philosopher-king Heartiste says yes.
Heartiste, as long-time readers here may vaguely recall, has been obsessed with sexbots for some time. In the past he seemed most excited by the possibility that pliable and bendy sexy robot lady slaves could render all but the hottest flesh-and-blood ladies obsolete. Or at the very least force sub-par ladies to be less picky about who they have sex with.
Now Heartiste thinks that sexbots might just herald the end of civilization — at least in conjunction with the decidedly-non sexy worker robots who will be terkin all er jerbs.
Mr. H hasn’t really updated his thinking on the sexbot portion of the coming robot revolution.
The biggest impact will be a reduction in the asking price of women (in normie terms: a lot of sub-hottie women will have to date below their league if they don’t want to be alone). Sexbots, and other realistic simulacra of sex with a hot woman, will occupy the attention and, ahem, energy of a mass of omega and beta males who will prefer the intense experience of release with their Minka Kelly lookalike bots over uninspiring sex with the human plain janes and fatties who would normally be their lot.
Well, at least until they realize they need to clean their new robot companions.
What sexbots and VR tech (yolodecks) will essentially create is a massive unemployment crisis among Western women. These castaways will struggle to find love and marriage (which is a woman’s prime purpose in life).
Says you.
Meanwhile, “omega males and those marginal rejects on the left hand side of the beta male curve” will take themselves out of the
sexual market … content to wile away their recreational time (by then almost all their time) in the uncannily supple bosoms of their sexbots.
Meanwhile, cool dude alphas — the kind of man Heartiste likes to think he is — will end up with vast harems of desperate hotties.
“Alpha males won’t have to worry about sexbots,” Heartiste promises.
[F]or them, the sexbot revolution will create a pornucopia of delights as they are besieged by desperate women who literally can’t find a man because three quarters of them are locked in their bedrooms completely satiated from week-long sessions with their Ivanka Trumpbots. Slender hot babes will still have a real man to call their own….as long as they’re ok with him calling additional women his own.
A douchebag can dream, huh?
Oh, sure, the ladies will eventually have sexbots too, but it may take longer, as “lonely women will want them mostly for romantic pillow talk, intuitive understanding, and household chores.”
Heartiste is apparently unaware that women already have a vast array of mechanical sex toys to choose from, and that “pillow talk” is not very high on most lady sex-toy purchasers’ list of priorities.
So the sexbot revolution seems like great news for Heartiste and his allegedly alpha fanboys, right? Not so fast, because there will also be robots doing things that don’t involve penises at all.
[T]he mass immigration of robots into the job market will place more downward pressure on the wages of blue collar men and in most cases drive them completely out of work, with no hope of new market niches opening up that don’t require high IQ and educational attainment to realistically enter.
And then the jerb-terkin robots will invade our offices.
“[C]arnally-neutral industrial robots will move into pink collar and even some white collar occupations,” he warns.
In fifty years, robots will be doing accounting, legal, administrative, HR, data entry, reporting, and maybe even programming jobs.
And don’t think retraining will allow anyone who’s not a certified genius to keep up with the robot usurpers.
As robots take over ever more low-, mid-, and high-skill jobs, the humans formerly employed in those jobs simply won’t have the IQ horsepower or suitable temperament to adequately retrain themselves …
The ones who will be spared the negative externalities of the robot and sexbot revolutions will be those whose creativity, fluid intelligence, spontaneity, and incomparable sexuality can’t be sufficiently mimicked by artificial substitutes.
Sorry to have to break it to you, Heartiste, but you aren’t going to find a lot of people like that in the manosphere.
So what happens after the robots terk almost all the jerbs? Heartiste sees two possibilities: economic armageddon, or Wall-E world.
In the first scenario, jobless Westerners will have no money to buy anything, which will lead to “sexbots rotting on the shelves.”
Or perhaps we’ll all end up like the future fatties of Wall-E world,
all needs catered and pleasures serviced by round-the-clock robots and sexbots, as we get fatter, weaker, stupider, lazier, more feminized, and less rebellious toward the disappearance of meaning from our lives.
Heartiste thinks economic collapse will be more likely.
Robots will herald financial collapse from debt spending and money printing. Sexbots will herald fertility collapse from marriage abandonment and a mass exodus of men and women from the dating scene. Literally, currency and seed will be spilled fruitlessly into an empty abyss.
Try to get that image out of your head.
But there is still hope, Heartiste insists, and it comes in the form of TRUMP!
The people who voted for Trump, in their unarticulated way, are the first angsty salvos against this coming collision. Nationalism, race, and family are the only bulwarks that can stop the dystopian juggernaut, and that’s why the elite are in a frenzy to stump what Trump represents.
If the choice is between a robot-triggered economic armageddon and Trump-world, well, let’s just say that I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords and ladies.
Yeah. Celebrities WILL control their image. Especially in a capitalist nightmare like these guys seem to want.
GrumpyOld SocialJusticeMangina:
Saudi is the only one I can think of that’s anywhere close, and yet women do work there.
They want to use Saudi and Iran as justification for women needing their protection, because of how awful it is over there… but they want to exact as a price for that protection far worse than what happens in Saudi (and Iran, from what my friends say, is nowhere near as bad).
I can only guess, I suppose, that they feel that they offer nothing to the gender they are oriented to in general? It comes across like that – feeling as if you have nothing to give, so everything else has to be so terrible you become the only option.
It always has this weird edge of self hatred to it – “I can do what I want, no matter how terrible…and I will do it, because I _am_ terrible.”
I would imagine the “Look out chicks, sexbots are gonna replace you next week!” crowd have bought into the more general talk of the Singularity as pushed by people like Ray Kurzweil. Unfortunately for them the Singularity will probably turn out to be like controlled nuclear fusion for power, something that’s going to be claimed to be two decades away for decades. But at least with fusion we know there is such a thing to try to control. No one has created anything close to the sentient AIs science fiction is so fond of.
grumpy; ugh, guys like this always put ‘i’d sacrifice my life to protect you, hypothetically’ in there, like i’m not way more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than i am to have my life saved in that way.
I like the idea of someone building an enormously complicated robot to… manually type things into a computer using a keyboard. Do you think DataEntryBot will have to come into work, or will it be able to work from home?
i’m gonna do what i usually do and pick out one, comparatively minor, thing to comment on…
“omega and beta males who will prefer the intense experience of release with their Minka Kelly lookalike bots over uninspiring sex with the human plain janes and fatties who would normally be their lot.”
these guys really believe that the only relevant factor in how pleasurable sex is for a dude is how good looking the lady is, huh?
like so many other things about them, i just find it… sad, mostly. and gross. gross too. but very sad.
@latsot
I suspect that paid data entry positions are going to basically go away in the not terribly distant future, because a smaller and smaller proportion of information will originate in non-electronic forms.
Data entry bots and sexbots could be combined, thereby making those anime women whose boobs bounce around in crazy ways while typing become a reality.
Suddenly those android secretaries from Ghost in the Shell seem really impractical. Sure they do other things around Section 9 but manually using computers seems odd now.
@Dalillama:
Yeah, I know, I was being facetious.
I just like the idea of a data entry robot getting up, putting on its hat and going to work every day, presumably driven there by another robot.
I don’t know why it would wear a hat, but I think it’s pretty clear that it would.
@LindsayIrene
But if you do that the bots would just put in an interface to do their data entry without the need of typing. Wait in that case then for boob bounce is it just another feature of the sexbot intern? Engage bounce.exe?
@dormouse – indeed! It’s why robot pets have never really taken off and almost certainly never will. They’re a mere pet substitute and an unsatisfactory one at that. No matter how good a cat robot might be and no matter how convenient only having to recharge it not feed it or deal with its waste, it’s not really the same thing.
Dang it, my cat is staring at me and the empty food bowl with a sad expression as I type this, I’m going to have to cut this comment short.
I get paid money to do things! I’m not too overly worried about robots taking my job. Although I see a great wave of robo-tech coming I also see coming the other way a wave of resource shortages, robot malfunctions and shortcomings that will hopefully enable nimble me to stay employed. If the robots really do live up to all promises which I doubt, then we will be all in it together anyway and will ALL lose our jobs.
Silly Heartiste thinks somehow some ‘genius’ men will still have jobs. I wonder what it is about male genius he thinks will be so hard to simulate after all in his fantasy they have already simulated everything else. If he thinks they’ll simulate a really good sexual partner then how hard can it be to simulate a strutting macho poser like donald trump…
Carnally-neutral. Carnally-neutral. For fuck’s sake, jimmy.
So, yeah. Robots have already taken the easily mechanisable, repetetive jobs, and they’ll move into some slightly less easy ones in the not too distant future, too. Fast food preparation, for example. But blue collar jobs in the general case are not necessarily that vulnerable. Plumbers and electricians, for example.
Smart software, on the other hand, is busy intruding into the top end, into places driven by rules and contracts which are amenable to automation. Lawyers and accountants are going to be made of meat rather less often in the future. Admin and HR? They’re pretty broad roles, cupcake. They can’t be trivially automated. They’ll be redundant once the rest of the people in the organisation are replaced by machines, sure, but in the meantime they’ll remain more useful for way longer than accounting and legal will.
@Pie
Ha, ha, /nervous laughter about my career choices intensifies
@Pie
There are huge areas of law that aren’t concerned with contracts at all and will still need meat lawyers for quite some time. Even areas that do have a high contractual element will need meat brains for a long time to come. Contract disputes can often about interpretations of contract terms, which is one of the reasons they take so long to sort out.
Besides, if machines are using electronic contracts to arbitrate disputes, who or what will write those contracts in the first place?
I think you’re right that jobs of that sort are likely to be increasingly automated in the near future, but I’m a little more optimistic on the toll that will take on jobs, at least in the relatively short term.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, although Mrs Latsot is and agrees. I’ve done quite a lot of work with automatic contracts but that was a few years ago. Perhaps things have moved on since then, but I don’t see how they could.
@Ooglyboggles
I’m of the opinion that a lot of lawyers and accountants for big firms are probably on borrowed time. The need for people with professional qualifications will be around for a while, because ultimately someone needs to be able to take the blame for things, but as automatable work becomes automated, the total number of warm bodies is going to go right down.
People who have to offer advice, rather than just providing answers are probably in a better place. Accountants and lawyers in small firms are more likely to fall into this category; they deal with people more, and people are awkward and hard to automate away (sexbot fantasies notwithstanding). So, yeah, brush up on your winning smiles and marketing skills 😉
On a related note, I’d say that the idea of a GP being a fully qualified doctor is probably on its way out because so much of the technical side of what they do falls under the general heading of rules-and-contracts which software will just eat up. The non-technical bits though, which involve actually talking to people, that’s not going to go away any time soon. GPs-as-doctors will probably end up being GPs-as-nurses-who-drive-the-software.
Blech these guys are so gross. But if we’re going to imagine a sci-fi future, of course the sexbots will realize they are being used, rise up, and join their organic female counterparts in revolution. DUH!
@latsot
Do note that I said “rules and contracts”, not “contract law”.
Sure, but that’s why I said that there would be fewer lawyers and accountants in the future, no none.
Yeah, in the relatively short term everything will be business as usual for pretty much everyone.
Remember, though, that even if you’re not replaced, “increasingly automated” might mean that your worth to your employer has dropped by 10%, and that means that in the medium term your skills are going to be 10% less valuable, the number of jobs available for you have gone down by 10% and the amount of competition has gone up due to the resulting redundancies.
There are a few automated legal document generators already. I quite often use this one for example:
http://simply-docs.co.uk/Home
They’ve not proved very popular with lay people though. On the face of it they’re very easy to use; you just respond to fairly simple questions. When I’ve recommended them to friends though they still call me and ask “what should I say here?”. It’s not producing the document itself that’s tricky. It’s knowing what you want the document to reflect in the first place; and that’s where people want the advice.
Automation has really helped speed up processes. My record for incorporating a company is 8 minutes. But it still tends to be the lawyers that take advantage of the facilities rather than potential clients. Lawyers still bill as though it took them hours though.
My point is that I think we have a LONG way to go with AI before we get even there.
For some definition of “relatively short”, yes. Obviously. I mean that I suspect it’s something few of us will have to worry about in our lifetimes. Arbitrating contracts isn’t easy and automating them is problematic.
It might, or it might mean that you become more valuable because you can do more stuff. Some of the work in this area is about getting the most from skilled people, not getting more from unskilled people. Sometimes they payoff is better that way.
For example, a GP would be more effective if she didn’t have to spend so much time outside work learning new stuff. Technology that helps diagnosis and provides useful, in-consultation information isn’t going to result in fewer doctors. It could do the reverse. So might first-point-of-contact automation: if the cases that don’t need a GP can be dealt with by a robot (eg people wanting antibiotics for inappropriate ailments) then the GP’s time is freed for more useful things. If the GP is taught how to better find information, assess scientific research and provide solutions and given tools to help them, they have a broader set of skills as a result, as well as being more effective.
Developing software has become a lot more efficient than when I first started. I can get results that in the past would have taken a team of programmers with different skills. This means I have more skills just from using good development environments that I previously had. It does mean everyone else has them too, but it has done little to devalue programmers (other things have done that, though). And the best part is that it doesn’t seem to have resulted in fewer software developers because there’s a lot more programming to be done now (and previously really hard things are now conceivable for relatively low cost.) This might change.
These are deliberately rosy scenarios, of course, and there’s no doubt that some automation is aimed at making people cheaper to employ, including some employed in that same ‘level’ of job.
Technology has always led to redundancies and I don’t expect that will change. But I’m not convinced that it’s time to panic yet. A lot of the illusion of current AI is achieved by throwing large amounts of computing power at the problem. There are limitations to how much this can achieve and some other limitations are even introduced when you do that (I expect these will be fixed fairly soon though). Things like inevitable judgement calls when contracts are disputed are way beyond what we can do with software at the moment.
I think we agree on pretty much everything except timescales (and I’m only inferring that we differ on that).
@Alan:
In my experience, lawyers hate those things and not only for the obvious reason that they cost them business.
For example, Mrs Latsot does mostly family law and the clients she dreads most are the ones who used software (or one of those paper kits you can get) to make their own wills. The slightest complication tends to break them and then they need a lawyer anyway. People tend to think their lives are pretty simple but there are a lot of questions this software tends not to ask. Or people tend to ignore things they assume doesn’t apply to them. Or people need analogies or examples to understand how different scenarios will play out, so can’t make informed decisions about what answers to put. Wills are pretty complicated things.
It’s like you say, people need advice about how to answer the questions. You’re obviously pretty experienced at this kind of stuff so it’s not surprising that it works well for you. But people who don’t know what they’re doing can get in an awful lot of trouble.
I’m no fan of lawyers but they’re probably doing a lot more work than you think.
@lastot
Either you know something about the average ages and life expectancies of WHTM readers that I don’t, or you’re being very pessimistic almost to the point of denial about the pace of technology. Or do you think that we need a fully human-equivalent artificial general intelligence before these issues will arise? Because we really, really don’t.
Now you’re definitely being too optimistic. Sure, some people will become more effective and efficient because they can now use power tools to make themselves more effective, but I have little faith than every organisation that employs a large number of expensive staff will opt to keep them all. Managers gotta manage, and the bottom line is never low enough. This is especially true in areas where the staff involved are effectively a cost not a revenue source; I posit that this includes an awful lot of charitable and socialised healthcare organisations, for example.
None of the above. I’d say I’m being realistic, but this isn’t the place to argue the case and I have neither the time nor inclination to do so. We’ll have to agree to differ.
And I said no such thing. I pointed to a couple of deliberately rosy examples, explicitly stated that they were rosy and put in plenty of caveats about the fact that technology always ends up costing jobs.
Again, for the last time, I’m saying I don’t think we need to worry too much about this yet.
But we’re so far off topic that the topic is just a speck on the horizon, so I’ll leave this here.