Notes from #WebSummit: We must ban sex robots

Details
Date: November 8, 2017
Time: 11:55
Conference stream: AutoTech/TalkRobot

Speakers
Kathleen Richardson, Professor of Culture and Ethics of Robots and AI, De Montfort University, @ProfKRichardson
Ben Goertzel, Chief Scientist, Hanson Robotics and SingularityNET, @bengoertzel
Charlotte Jee, Editor, Techworld, @charlottejee

Web Summit Summary
As humanoid robots advance, one subset has aroused particular suspicion, and found its champions: those designed for sex. This debate examines whether sex robots should be left to the user to try or whether they go too far and should be stopped immediately.

Main Theme

This debate, moderated by Charlotte Jee, positioned a culture and ethics professor against a robotics scientist. It was a fierce debate. Both speakers were passionate in their positions on the topic of whether sex robots should be banned or not. Kathleen Richardson is adamantly against sex robots as she feels they symbolize and perpetuate the systemic misogyny and commodification of women. Ben Goertzel disagrees. He feels that banning sex robots is to ban technology and that it sets a precedent for governments or other regulating bodies to do so.

The Key Quote

“[Sex robots represent] egocentric individualism. It is built on the model of master and slave.”
- Kathleen Richardson

“Banning [sex robots] won’t work. It’ll go underground, which won’t improve things, whatsoever.”
- Ben Goertzel

Key Points

1. Kathleen Richardson opened the debate by asking the audience to consider the “asymmetry” in our world — that men have been brought up in a world where they can pay a price and have access to a woman’s body and that women and girls can be purchased.
2. Kathleen calls this mentality “egocentric individualism”, which is built on the model of master and slave. She argues that sex robots are the equivalent — and that production and use of them perpetuates the commodification of women and girls.
3. Ben Goertzel began by stating that he doesn’t feel that sex robots are particularly interesting compared to other advancements in robotics technology, but that it’s still “the dawn of something really exciting”.
4. Ben argued that banning sex robots sets a dangerous precedent for governments or other regulatory bodies to ban other technologies in the future as well. In fact, he would like to see the blockchain used to develop AI, therefore no single person would own the technology. It would be decentralized and no government nor large corporation could have monopoly over it.

Reflections

At the beginning of the debate, Charlotte Jee surveyed the audience: “who thinks sex robots should be banned?” A tiny number of predominantly women raised their hands. She told Kathleen that she hoped that wasn’t discouraging and that perhaps she’d convince others after the debate.

Kathleen touched on some really interesting theoretical points. The idea of sex robots in the shape of women, designed primarily for the pleasure of men, perpetuating misogyny and objectification of women is a strong one. Women are objectified and commodified in our society, that’s a truth. But I don’t believe banning sex robots will solve that issue.

I’m inclined to side more closely with Ben Goertzel. Sex robots and AI are inevitable. I agree that an adult using a sex robot is a victimless crime. In fact, I don’t believe it is a crime at all. Technology for sexual pleasure has been around for decades, and will continue to exist and develop. It’s not a worthwhile use of resources for governments to ban these technologies. Perhaps Ben is right that doing so will set a dangerous precedent for banning other technologies in the future, but when technology develops to a point where robots with AI have more sophisticated emotions and sensory receptors, regulations will need to be implemented. By whom, I’m not sure.

I would have liked to hear more of Kathleen’s perspective, but she seemed to get derailed near the end of the debate. I can’t help but feel she had an unfair disadvantage as an academic speaking to a crowd of engineers, software developers, and investors that attend Web Summit in support of new technology and networking. At the end of the debate, when the crowd was surveyed again, about the same number of people raised their hands in favour of banning sex robots. It seems that major ideological shifts will be needed to win them over.

These notes are brought to you by TWG: software makers to the world’s innovators.

Want to know what sessions we’ll be at next? Our chatbot pal Web Summelier can hook you up. Want to receive a summary of all our notes when Web Summit’s over? Sign up here.

Psst! We’ve published many more insights on technology, design, and all things software on our blog, The Almanac.