/robowaifu/ - DIY Robot Wives

Advancing robotics to a point where anime catgrill meidos in tiny miniskirts are a reality.

LynxChan updated to 2.5.7, let me know whether there are any issues (admin at j dot w).


Reports of my death have been greatly overestimiste.

Still trying to get done with some IRL work, but should be able to update some stuff soon.

#WEALWAYSWIN

Max message length: 6144

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

More

(used to delete files and postings)


Welcome to /robowaifu/, the exotic AI tavern where intrepid adventurers gather to swap loot & old war stories...


Open file (158.32 KB 1920x1072 mpv-shot0007.jpg)
Open file (132.18 KB 1920x1072 mpv-shot0004.jpg)
Open file (134.83 KB 1920x1072 mpv-shot0011.jpg)
Open file (155.42 KB 1920x1072 mpv-shot0003.jpg)
Thot in the Shell 1 Robowaifu Technician 04/10/2021 (Sat) 06:58:56 No.9709
TITS Robowaifus The basic idea is that IRL females will be plugged into remote-operation consoles; from there they will have some teleoperational control of robowaifus during engagements. The basic point being human contact for Anon. Obviously, this situation is fraught with both possibilities and hazards. As a board, we had a somewhat extensive discussion and debate on the topic in our first-ever /robowaifu/ council over in the /meta-3 thread (>>9712). As the BO, I had to come to some type of decision on the matter in the end, and here it is: (>>10194). While we didn't actually manage a consensus, my decision was to go ahead and proceed with developing the concept more fully here on /robowaifu/. Therefore, the TITS Robowaifus thread #1 is now open for business -- with two fundamental caveats. 1. Absolutely no free-form, 'open-mic', unconstrained, verbal or physical control by TITS thots of any TITS Robowaifus themselves. The most problematic issues with the whole idea all stem directly from failing to enforce this basic rule. Also, the intricacies of pulling off implementing these restraints correctly, and still allowing for an appealing, effective, and fun engagement for the Anon himself is actually quite a dramatic challenge & achievement. Solving all this will advance many different robowaifu-related areas all together at once. 2. Men will be free to turn off 'safetys' if they desire to plug their IRL GFs into the remote-end of a TITS connection. They are taking their own lives in their hands with such a risk, and they will be clearly informed of that. Note that this is a privately-conducted connection between Anon and his GFs, and isn't in any way associated with any business-oriented systems utilizing professional prostitutes (whether they are labeled as such or not). Basic safetys are not to be disabled in that context whatsoever. Because we are cutting new trails here on robowaifu frontiers (yet again), it's unclear to me yet whether these 'rules' will be sufficient. They probably will receive (potentially extensive) revisions as we move forward. After all, this entire premise represents a significant increase in the complexity of the many issues involving robowaifus already, and puts several new items onto that table as well. Note: please keep all TITS Robowaifus discussions contained to just the TITS threads themselves. >--- Cheers /robowaifu/, let us proceed. This is sure to be quite a ride! :^) >=== -complete overhaul of the OP
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 05/01/2021 (Sat) 20:59:15.
Since I have personally taken over OP's thread entirely, I'm going to repost his original OP here in the first reply post. This is both to honor the OP for bringing the topic up in the first place, and also to ensure we have a basic archive of the post itself here. The full text of Anon's post follows: >--- > Teleoperation of machines is not a new idea. I guess all of us had a moment when we were contemplating to let human operators participate in the control of some robowaifu or thotbot. Probably none of us would really want that, and the idea comes with a lot of questions. Most of us might even like the idea of having a limited AI in a female body, which we would train, much more than dealing with a robot controlled by one or several humans. This is also a matter of identity. A robowaifu with some AI is exactly that, while a remote controlled bot is something else. In many ways related, but still somehow something different. Since it could be seen as a transitional state of the technology, I still think it's on topic here, though. Also the lines might be blurry, since the contributions from the outside would be filtered, constrained and altered. > Also, we real robowaifu enthusiasts here might just not be like everyone. We are probably outliers. Also, we are not able to create a good chatbot yet, which could be talked to in a meaningful way. I have no doubt, we'll be getting there soon. However, some of us might not want to wait, others certainly won't. > So let's stay open minded when looking for (temporary) alternatives and at least think their feasibility and challenges through. > Sandman (MGTOW) had a idea like this a while ago: Letting some women participate in the upcoming "sexrobot industry" by giving them jobs where they would be participating in the actions and responses of the bot. His main argument was, that this would split possible opposition into a group opposed to all of it and the ones profiting, hoping to profit or caring about those who do. >>8187 > Another aspect might be, that many men are not open for using fembots for sex or as companions. Maybe for personal reasons, others for social reasons, like shaming. Having a transition phase might be helpful. > I do recall, other people having the idea of using chatbots for customer support, which can switch over to take in responses by an operator. A more recent and more ambitious example I saw, was some brief report about a robot cafe in Japan, where handicapped people control the robots from home. They're staff then, but are probably also supposed to interact with the guests. > Thoughts on execution: > - One thing is, the ones interested in this topic should come up with a good vocabulary for it. The women contributing are not the operators, for example, but their responses are a commodity which they provide. So they're rather contributors or imaginators, idk. More unofficial terms could be something like 'remote thots', dependent on the use case. > - Thanks to on the fly translation they could be some women abroad, to cut down on costs. So some nice Philippina wouldn't need to get into the west, but also get no chance to do so, and exploit the situation. Men wouldn't need to travel to such countries, especially those which mainly want to talk and get some validation. > - Customer and imaginator shouldn't know each other. Then this wouldn't be about tricking men into sending money to a particular woman. > - Security would be crucial. Only sanitized inputs of text should go through from the remote imaginator to the client. > - Questions for personal information might get filtered out the same way. There could be masks like <country> for where someone lives, which would replace the real data before it is show to the imaginator. > - They would not be able to control the robot however they want. Software comes first. Pre-defined movement patterns, checks for safety, like if something is in the way, would limit what they could do. > - Only text would be exchanged. No audio, no pictures. But descriptions of the changes in the environment. > - Ideally the imaginators would be pretty replaceable, but somehow the argumentation of the bot would need to be consistent, especially if she is meant to have a identity. > I hope with all these constraints and limitations, I was able to cut down the meaning of having a 'thot in the shell'. I'm not promoting to give them any relevant control, just including the option that there might be interest for something in which they're participating. Also, that we can limit the meaning and power of the women involved by our design decisions. And this is going to tear down resistance to the real thing. > Related: >>8187 >>9654 >>9656 > Chatbot, AI: >>250 > (Sorry for posting is several times and deleting it, had to figure out the system. Made some serious mistakes, didn't know if the admin can change it later. Hope no one started commenting already, but I guess not.) >--- My response: > This is both an important, interesting, and pertinent topic for us here. It's also a skillfully done OP as well, thank you Anon. However, I'm far from convinced that teleoperated robowaifus are in men's best interest in general. Perhaps there are some reasonable exceptions due, but overall this is a concept that is certainly loaded with many complex & difficult problems, some of them actually dangerous to men. > I'm going to lock the thread for now, OP. > We can have a conversation about this together as a board in the /meta-3 thread >>9712. If we can all come to a consensus about an edited version of your OP, I'll unlock your thread again. But only if. This needs to be seriously considered, and in detail, before we should in any way promote the idea here. I'll pin both threads while we all proceed in this discussion. >=== -repost initial dialog
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 05/01/2021 (Sat) 20:00:22.
>>9709 >Also, the intricacies of pulling off implementing these restraints correctly, and still allowing for an appealing, effective, and fun engagement for the Anon himself is actually quite a dramatic challenge & achievement. IMO this will be one of the chief hurdles to overcome. And since it's solution's characteristics will have many cascading-type implications for most of the following design & engineering R&D, I'd suggest that it be the primary focus for us all to address very early on.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?