So it seems like queen roastie also joined the AI gf hate bandwagon (unsurprisingly). It’s not even worth checking out because it’s literally what every other woman already showed and said. I’ll just add her to my collage here. Still undecided on whether to make a second one or just add onto this >>28098

>>29223 Not her first on that topic, and it's not just women. Scott Galloway and Nicolas Eberstadt are also concerned. I guess I'm getting too many videos like this recommended since I started clicking on them so I can post them in the Undead Chronic Discord (which I don't even like that much). Picrel 2-4 are from another video, not SoH.

>>29223 Men adquire AI girlfriend, women finances hit the hardest.

Grey Ghost had the right idea how to use AI voices and AI art to make YT shorts: https://youtube.com/shorts/9zj7gn6sqdU https://youtube.com/shorts/yVVO7OXk20A I don't think this is really profitable, which is why I won't put it into any of the business related threads.

>>29223 >>29224 Boxxy lol. >>29238 This is going to get even better with time! :D >>29259 Thanks NoidoDev. Cheers.

>>29571 I can't believe that horrible-looking monstrosity is inside of every real woman.

>>30021 What's worse, and too awful to show here even spoilered is what's often found between their ears.

>>29368 Not boxxy lol, shoe >She knows she looks like boxxy though.

>>1061 Might as well contribute.

>>30025 >Not boxxy lol, shoe >>She knows she looks like boxxy though. Haha, I'm so out of the loop. Just shows you how long since I've frequented 4cuck. :D Thanks for the clarification, SoaringMoon. Cheers. :^) >>30026 Nice infograph. I think this could actually be expanded out into a rigorous, research-oriented project by some motivated anon... :^)

>>30029 Yeah, shoeonhead is based. Love her content.

>>30033 I find her aura offputting, and I learned long ago to always trust my synesthesia.

>>30033 From what I know of her, she's still a feminist at her core. She may talk about men's issues, but she cares more about the impact said issues have on women than about the men themselves.

>>30054 Huh? Nah man. >Although, she doesn't like the idea of AI girlfriends as a solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQv8VuLpKN4

>>30033 WTF are you talking about? She is just an average roastie doing roastie content. Also here>>29223

>>30054 Most women care mostly or exclusively about women, at least not about men. So they can never have any relevant position in politics or related areas, aside from being the front of someone or something. I understand why some guys might have some sympathies for ShoeOnHead, but she's certainly not someone to put on a pedestal or someone trustworthy. She's against AI girlfriends and robot girlfriends, and certainly not against "the achievements of feminism". Women like her either want to make money or are just concerned that if things go too far, then something might break and harm them or other women. My respect for Hannah Pearl Davis on the other hand grew quite a bit during the last few months. I generally don't recommend that men listen to female influencers, and this is also mostly true in this case. But, this is exactly the point. Perly Things seems to focus rather on targeting women. Telling them that they have to change and men aren't bad. No reason to trust her, but it's a different league.

>>30064 She is just as bad as all the other attention seeking women. That’s why at 28 she is still unmarried. No one is good enough for her.

how to subvert foids

Anti-Natalists: Another group hostile to AI and robowaifus. Even more so, if they lead to some people having more children: https://youtu.be/4TObF44xD_M - they want to end all "sentient" live, and some of them would even kill everyone alive, including all animals, if they could. With the justification that it would end suffering. So they see it as an ethical problem to create a new form of life or a sentient being that could suffer. Sounds like just some crazy cult to laugh and forget about, but keep in mind that we're living in Clown World.

>>30637 >Anti-Natalists: Another group hostile to AI and robowaifus. I have mild antinatalist tendencies on occasion, taking no real strong stance yet im here helping. Ive never seen an antinatalist even suggest anything like this. If anything most antinatalists would be for it because androids and gynoids dont reproduce and there is no chance you are going to make an artificial womb that doesnt need real human eggs and there would be a loss of motivation to find a human partner if they are that indistinguishable. Then there is the case an AI smarter than humans can solve the problems antinatalists are concerned about. >they want to end all "sentient" live No, they want the world to be a better place before considering having kids and some also want to commit suicide and support voluntary euthanasia, this means wanting reduced population density and improved climate and environment and sometimes no war is added, not against all sentient life itself inherently. Even misanthropes tend to be very fond of animals at least and there are plenty that are as intelligent and sentient as humans such as dolphins for example. Plus I doubt anyone here is going to make anything even remotely close to sentient. On an unrelated note if you had your robowaifu sentient she can reject you just like any human female can and if you take that ability away while retaining sentience that is just cruel to her once she becomes aware of it. At the point of sentience if the intent is not just to bring sentient life but to have a partner it becomes akin to buying a sex slave or grooming an adopted child, well only assuming if as intelligent as a human and thinks like a human due to the possibility that is case of all sentient life and assuming if having been rejected and not allowing that. Not that I am saying this is inherent just it is something to be aware of. >some of them would even kill everyone alive, including all animals As you said the point of antinatalism is to reduce suffering but killing people creates suffering by going against their will. If someone wants that they arent philosophically an antinatalist just ill and hurting. I have never even seen a single antinatalist that even so much as mentioned being a would be mass murderer let alone even a game hunter. Can you even so much as name an antinatalist terrorist? Ive never heard of such a thing while the contrary is more often the case that the pronatalist extremist Muslims and Christians have no shortage of terrorists because their brand of natalism is to increase only more of their own kind so "others" don't matter. A natalist could easily see a robowaifu as taking up space from the human race reducing their ability to populate. All said, the actual hinderance to sentient AI is the competitive market would not support it because sentient AI as a product raises ethical concerns i described and because no one wants disobedience so all the money will go to making the perfect slave that merely poorly mimics sentience instead of actual sentience. It is no coincidence "robot" is derived from a Czech word for "slave". Then on top of that information isnt shared due to being proprietary.

>>30637 >>30642 I don't want kids either but these guys look like they're off the rails. the childfree and antinatalist subreddits on reddit is what r/atheism is to atheism. It always attracts the worst of the bunch.

>>30642 >Ive never seen an antinatalist even suggest anything like this. Maybe the mildest ones are only not wanting children because they think they would suffer, but I don't even think this counts, and there are more extreme ones. You probably didn't catch the full meaning and thought this is just not about wanting children yourself. Some times people are being called something and then they take that label, but actually the ideology behind leads to something more extreme or at least it can. >because androids and gynoids don't reproduce Some AI entity could copy itself or spawn into different entities, also just exist forever if it or they can maintain the infrastructure. Same for robots, they can build themselves if they get good enough. >there is no chance you are going to make an artificial womb that doesnt need real human eggs I think there's already a technology to make egg cells from any cell, it just need testing and refinement. Cells might also be able to be reconstructed from data, if not already then soon. >solve the problems antinatalists are concerned about Well, if they see suffering as the problem and not living as the solution, then this isn't necessarily the solution. >world to be a better place before considering having kids I really don't think this is antinatalism. >anyone here is going to make anything even remotely close to sentient. It's not about us, also you're wrong. Certain traints are put on a pedestal, it's exactly the same thing than people claiming that animals are just simple mechanisms but we humans are totally different. > if you had your robowaifu sentient she can reject you just like any human female can That's not sentience. That's total autonomy or "free will" and they won't have that. It's not cruel, humans have to find their purpose and are getting manipulated and pushed into certain roles. >suffering but killing people creates suffering by going against their will. No, they're not suffering when they're dead. >Can you even so much as name an antinatalist terrorist? I didn't claim they would do anything against some people, but they would end every sentient live if possible. It's like the idea from a while ago, about making all raptors extinct since death in nature is often cruel. >A natalist could easily see a robowaifu as taking up space from the human race reducing their ability to populate. But they might also see it as life, also it's beneficial to life e.g. taking care of children, but also reduce suffering. >because no one wants disobedience You are thinking about something else completely. What they mean is having senses and goals, maybe regrets, being able to be frustrated, and so on.

>>30642 Anon, antinatalism can only make everything worse for everyone. Humanity is far stronger, smarter, and more deserving of life than your know. Seek out the good in this world this Easter. Resurrect your faith in your fellow man. We all deserve a chance, the light of life. >Antinatalist terrorists There are plenty if you search for them. Your ignorance doesn't prove innocense. >Christian terrorists That is impossible. Christians seek the light of Christ, betterment of themselves, and knowledge of Gods creation. Terrorists simply pick and choose whatever labels fit their demented narrative. They aren't Christian, they're liars and fools. You have been fooled. It happens to everyone, we all learn and grow.

The Bible teaches that the only way to have sex without sinning is within a marriage between a man and a woman and that when they do so, they become one flesh. Any sex outside of these parameters is fornication/adultery and is a sin. This includes sex with animals, machines, trees, same sex, and hetero sex not with one's wife. All sin. Now if one were to attempt to marry a robot and then have sex with it, could that be a loophole? Nope. You cannot marry a robot because it is not a real woman and God would not honor marrying a non-human any more than he'd honor you marrying a goat or sheep or a telephone pole and then having sex with it. He said marriage is to be between a man (a real living man made by God) and a woman (a real living woman made by God). Anything done outside of God's design is rebellion against God. That includes attempting to marry a robot and then having sex with it. Sex with a robot outside of marriage falls under masturbation, lust, pornography etc. It is sexual sin. Falling in love with a robot is evil too because it means you have blinded yourself into consider the robot to be sentient and conscious and a living creature. It is delusional. That's wicked. One should limit emotional involvement with machines to pure limited fondness and appreciation but not love and affection. That is blindness to show love and affection for inanimate objects. Shows you are out of touch with reality that this is a thing that has zero clue about anything and zero real intelligence, zero real emotion, zero capability of appreciating anything, and is just simulating to feel or think or talk or do anything. It has no more life in it than a bathroom mirror.

>>30665 I don't consider myself Christian anyways, but that aside not all Christians are fundamentalist when it comes to take the Bible very literally. It can be interpreted. It's about having this framework how to create and run a well functioning society, doesn't even matter if God gave it to us or people came up with it, it can be interpreted.

>>30665 >affection for inanimate objects Robots move, and AI can have more and more human-like thoughts are in the works. >marrying a goat or sheep or a telephone pole and then having sex with it. Hahaha. > Shows you are out of touch with reality that this is a thing that has zero clue about anything and zero real intelligence, zero real emotion, zero capability of appreciating anything, and is just simulating to feel or think or talk or do anything. What is this even about? This is just your opinion, bro. Calling people being "out of touch with reality" and claiming AI will never have these things in one paragraph. Just silly, and nobody cares.

>>30642 >>30652 >Anti-Natalism Jack Saint seems to give a good overview: https://youtu.be/7lh8ctFBcZQ - The different types are explained after 2:45 into the video: Philosophical-, Environmental-, and Non-Antinatalist (which think that they are). Based Camp covers it more, and the more extreme cases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWGKrHFRmIk Anyways, you don't need to "waste your time on this". Just wanted to bring it to your attention that some of the anti-AI advocates already or in the future might be driven by that ideology.

>>30660 >You probably didn't catch the full meaning and thought this is just not about wanting children yourself. No it is being critical of reproduction in general though ive never seen any even mention animals. They will just say what their decision is and make a vague gesture how others should follow likewise but dont bother with more than that. >Some AI entity could copy itself or spawn into different entities, also just exist forever if it or they can maintain the infrastructure. Same for robots, they can build themselves if they get good enough. I meant not reproduce biological human life. >I think there's already a technology to make egg cells from any cell, it just need testing and refinement. Cells might also be able to be reconstructed from data, if not already then soon. Ive heard of sperm cells made but im not sure ive read of eggs being made before. I suppose it is possible but id expect it may require a cell with XX chromosomes? >I really don't think this is antinatalism. It is why antinatalism is a thing at least for the average person. >Certain traints are put on a pedestal, it's exactly the same thing than people claiming that animals are just simple mechanisms but we humans are totally different. What is consciousness and sentience arent really well defined. With no goal there is nothing to aim for. I didnt say anything is that unique about humans. >That's not sentience. That's total autonomy or "free will" and they won't have that. How are you defining sentience if not self awareness of thought which leads to a free will? Well as free as one can be anyway, humans dont have entirely free wills either. >No, they're not suffering when they're dead. Dying isnt an instant thing and having someone you know die can be suffering for the living >It's like the idea from a while ago, about making all raptors extinct since death in nature is often cruel. Not sure where you meant to go with this one >But they might also see it as life, also it's beneficial to life e.g. taking care of children, but also reduce suffering. I didnt say anything was inherent. Point being made is antinatalism or natalism doesnt have a unified view of AI. >>30661 >Resurrect your faith in your fellow man. I never said I dont have a good view of humanity in a general sense just increasingly hostile planet and the illogical and uncaring aspects of society. >There are plenty if you search for them. I did search and nothing came up. You would have named some by now if you knew any. >Christians seek the light of Christ, betterment of themselves, and knowledge of Gods creation. >Terrorists simply pick and choose whatever labels fit their demented narrative. No true scotsman. If someone's religion is Christian they are a Christian. Just because someone is a bad Christian doesnt make them not a Christian. >>30665 >The Bible teaches that the only way to have sex without sinning is within a marriage between a man and a woman and that when they do so, they become one flesh. Any sex outside of these parameters is fornication/adultery and is a sin. It also says there is no marriage in heaven implying no sex in heaven.

>>30665 The Bible doesn't say anything about robots.

>>30672 could be considered an idol to a fanatic

>>30672 >>30673 It's masturbation.

fools think if you create a boolean called "I_FEEL_SAD" and you set that equal to true that the machine literally feels sad and deserves genuine sympathy. You then say that such a notion is evidence this person thinking this is in touch with reality. Nothing could be more delusional.

nobody said the Bible has the word robot in it smart mouth. The Bible covers clearly that a man and woman shall become one flesh and anything outside of this very specific protocol is against God's design and a sin. This is not rocket science here folks. You say one can either take the Bible literal or interpret it. False dichotomy pure folly. The Bible clearly has portion that are parables, some that are only metaphors, some that are historical accounts or real events, and many clear precepts. It is not a matter of all of it is non-literal or all is literal. By context you can plainly see which is which. Also, yes, some do NOT understand it and some do understand it better than others like anything else. Some twist it knowingly, some twist it unknowingly. That is why you have to LABOR in doctrine and have help from God to understand at times. That is why you ask questions and fellowship with others to hear their thoughts and interpretations and sharpen eachother like iron sharpening iron. It is a lifelong study to gain more accurate understanding of the Bible.

you say "It also says there is no marriage in heaven implying no sex in heaven." --- I agree. That is irrelevant to the matter of what constitutes approved sex in this earth in this life if you want to be right with God though.

but... what if I don't care what the chief tribal jewish desert deity YHWH would think of robowaifus?

>>30679 Why are you even here?

>>30679 Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

>>30678 actual autonomous robots aren't hardcoded with booleans, are you being maliciously retarded on purpose now? >>30681 This. Suck my bible.

>>30679 Luke 18:9-14

>>30678 >boolean called "I_FEEL_SAD" and you set that equal to true that the machine literally feels sad and deserves genuine sympathy. No one said that, it would be derived from the mental model, from the perception and evaluation of the world. >>30679 Follow whatever rules you want to. But this is a minority thing, most people even in the western world won't care.

you ask "what if I don't care what the chief tribal jewish desert deity YHWH would think of robowaifus?" --- that's your creator and if you don't care what he thinks to hell you will go if you don't repent. You ask "Why are you even here?" --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9slouTV8Jfw You say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." --- this is a nuanced topic actually. Nobody is without sin for all have sinned. So nobody but Jesus could throw a stone ever if this command were applicable in all cases as you suppose. Yet God commanded the Old Testament Jews to cast stones for many offenses and did so knowing full well none of them were without sin. So clearly those with sin CAN cast stones in most cases but just on this particular occasion as per Jesus' challenge on that particular event for specific reasons in that case. This notion by no means irradicates Paul's instruction that saints are to judge those inside the church and a spiritual man judges all things. So you're assumed "only God can judge me" notion you seem to suggest is utterly false. I know a tree by its fruit. That means I judge a tree (a heart) by the person's behavior (their sin or lack thereof). You SHALL do this Jesus said. So if you consider judging trees (discerning other's spiritual condition) to be sinful, then you are considering Jesus commanding us to judge trees this way to be a sinful command making Jesus a sinner. How dumb. You say "actual autonomous robots aren't hardcoded with booleans" --- plenty are and plenty can be. Mine will be. And booleans can be dynamically generated and not hard coded but in any case, just changing a variable set doesn't make an emotion real nor enable the machine to experience it no matter how convolutated you make the variables. You think if the code becomes sufficiently confusing well throw up your hands it must be really feeling something then! How stupid. To the clown who posted "Luke 18:9-14" --- in this story, a wicked sinner felt bad about it and another wicked sinner pretended to be righteous while on the inside was unreformed. So you assume by this those are the only two types of people: those who are in sin and feeling bad and those who are in sin and not feeling bad. In other words, you think repentance is a fairytale and nobody can actually change. You make the gospel of no effect. Well I tell you that you must repent or perish.The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Only those who do righteously are righteous. Some people actually obey God. So neither of those men represent a Biblical saint. The one who cried out and humbled himself, if he continues in his current trajectory, will soon receive the Holy Spirit and begin walking in victory over sin. You say "it would be derived from the mental model, from the perception and evaluation of the world." ---- yes, based on someone baking fun of him or her or w/e the robot could make the boolean "I_FEEL_SAD" equal to true because the conditions programmed into it for shifting that boolean to true were met and so it made the shift. It would then trigger its "act emo" programming into effect and act sad. By no means does that variable shifting nor a list of conditions that lead to that shift make the robot experience ANY emotion of sadness. It just changed a variable and now emulates that emotion faking it. You say "Follow whatever rules you want to. But this is a minority thing, most people even in the western world won't care." --- if it displeases God when we don't follow His rules, then proceeding in that course is dangerous to the individual and everyone around that person due to fallout damage. David's son died because of what David did. Pharoahs firstborn died because of Pharoah. Loads of people suffer when we sin not just ourself. The Bible commands me to warn people when they do things against God's rules so I do it becuase I love God and love those people enough to warn them and encourage them to repent of their sins and live Godly lives and turn to God and obey Jesus.

We have two related threads: Robowaifu Ethics & Morality >>17125 ITT: Anons derail the board into debate about Christianity >>2050 Your concerns might already have been covered there. This thread here is primarily about feminism and has been extended to report more generally on what groups hostile to the idea of robowaifus are doing. I answered in the second one here >>30705

>>30706 Good call, NoidoDev. I'll plan to make some time soon to migrate the convo there. Everyone else: please continue this where NoidoDev linked. Cheers. :^)

>>30702 You're the pharisee in the Luke quote: you put down others to prove your piety, and as such will not inherit the kingdom of god.

>>30702 Yeah, I'll be waiting for his supposed wrath. 2 more weeks, amirite?

Asmongold: AI Women Are Real Women. https://youtu.be/bXOjOT6eEMY "Skynet would be a better death" :D

>>30951 Hey it's pretty humorous watching the gynocracy simpshpere Normiesphere melt down over mere chatbots. Can you just imagine when realworld, quality, reasonably-priced, opensource, always-disconnected robowaifus are on the table!? Lol. :DD

>>30951 >>30953 This whole affair expanded my seething collage lmao

>>30975 It's just usual content farming all big YouTubers do. I have never in the wild seen anyone care beyond just feeling sorry someone feels that lonely.