Can You Fall in Love with a Robot?
Recent studies have found that humans can feel concern over a robot if they think that it is in pain. This indicates that we can feel as much empathy for a mechanical person as a biological one.
Advances in robotics and AI are starting to gain some real momentum. In the coming decades, scientists predict robots will take over more and more jobs—including white collar ones, and gain ubiquity in the home, school, and work spheres. Due to this, roboticists and AI experts, social scientists, psychologists, and others are speculating what impact it will have on us and our world. Google and Oxford have teamed up to make a kill switch should AI initiate a robot apocalypse.
One way to overcome this is to imbue AI with emotions and empathy, to make them as human-like as possible, so much so that it may become difficult to tell robots and real people apart. In this vein, scientists have wondered if it might be possible for a human to fall in love with a robot, considering we are moving toward fashioning them after our own image. Spike Jonze’s Her and the movie Ex Machina touch on this.
Recent studies have found that humans can feel concern over a robot if they think that it is in pain. This indicates that we can feel as much empathy for a mechanical person as a biological one. Of course emotional concern is not the same as romantic love. The thought of humans interacting with robots on a complex emotional level was first tested back in 1966. Back then, MIT professor Joseph Weizenbaum created a computer program called “Eliza” who took the role of a psychologist. It asked participants therapy-like questions to see how they would respond and interact with the program.
The debut of a robot receptionist in a department store in Japan.
People soon began treating Eliza as if it were a living, breathing person. Though not as advanced as AI today, it did elicit in-depth responses. In fact, Weizenbaum soon found that subjects were more comfortable revealing intimate details to the program than they were to most people. Perhaps they did so knowing that Eliza wouldn’t judge.
There are indications that falling for a robot is possible. For instance, research shows that people who chitchat via email, messenger, on the phone, or through text often feel a more intimate bond than those who chat face-to-face. The pressure is off, and so too might it be with a robot.
Anyone who has found love complicated, basically all of us, has wished for a simpler relationship, and a robot lover may fit the bill. Still, AI is not at the level where it can make nuanced emotional responses. Ever go on a date with someone who doesn’t have any emotional or intellectual depth? It is such a turnoff. NYU psychology professor Gary Marcus says there are different kinds of love. Right now, we may find a relationship with a robot much like that of dog and master, at least until their intellectual and emotional intelligence is up to snuff.
Another stumbling block is whether or not the robot could love you back. Today, our mechanized counterparts can recognize human facial expressions and respond to them. This isn’t the robot feeling the emotion itself or responding out of empathy, but merely out of programming. In human relationships, we may notice that one person loves more than the other or contributes more. This is difficult in and of itself. When the discrepancy is apparent, we often consider one person “using” the other. “You don’t really love me,” a jilted lover might claim. Since we have no way of instilling emotions and empathy in robots currently and we don’t know if it will be possible, a synthetic human may become a good faker, but may in fact be incapable of loving you back.
Robots can now mimic our emotional range, but that’s not the same as having emotions.
This knowledge that the machine is faking it, or that it is unable to authentically love could bite the person, a worry that begins to bubble up more and more until it finally destroys the “relationship.” So you may be able to love a robot. But some people may not be able to sustain it long-term.
For those who can be fulfilled by the fantasy, companies could make a suitable lover based on their own specifications. These would include both physical and personality traits. The synthetic suitor would have to be programmed with certain faults as well, since imperfections would make the lover relatable. A perfect person can get on your nerves after a while, making your own faults seem pronounced.
And what about stigmatization? Would a human-robot relationship be deemed as worthy as a human-to-human one? Or would those who kept a robot lover be considered unable to find or attract a real person? Another aspect is what human-robot relationships would do to the organic variety. Why love someone who never loads the dishwasher, forgets your birthday, or hates your friends when a robot won’t ever? Of course one could argue that these interactions could never have the depth, texture, or breadth that a real human relationship has, warts and all.
True Companion is a robot girlfriend named Roxxxy introduced in 2010.
Most people today find the idea of robot-human love distasteful. But it could be worse than just merely offensive. Dr. Kathleen Richardson a UK robotics ethicist told the BBC that sexbots could seriously damage human relationships, to say nothing of it glorifying exploitation, whether it be that of a living being or no. Yet the very definitions of love, courtship, marriage, and companionship have changed dramatically throughout history. Perhaps this is why British AI specialist David Levy recently penned the book, Love and Sex with Robots. He predicts human-robot marriages will be commonplace by 2050. Levy also believes you’ll be able to order a lover or spouse to specifications and it will even be able to carry on sophisticated conversations, something our human partners today may fail to do, distracted by the love of another technology already threatening relationships, smart phones.
To see where we are with human-like robots today click here:
While legalization has benefits, a new study suggests it may have one big drawback.
- A new study finds that rates of marijuana use and addiction have gone up in states that have recently legalized the drug.
- The problem was most severe for those over age of 26, with cases of addiction rising by a third.
- The findings complicate the debate around legalization.
Cannabis Use Disorder, is that when you get so high you can’t figure out how to smoke anymore?<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="hfrVfwoH" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="0e62d9cb9c0a2361f81e9b5278706614"> <div id="botr_hfrVfwoH_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/hfrVfwoH-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/hfrVfwoH-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/hfrVfwoH-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538131/" target="_blank">Cannabis use disorder</a>, also known as CUD or cannabis/marijuana addiction, is a psychological disorder described in DSM 5 as "the continued use of cannabis despite clinically significant impairment." This includes people being unable to cut down on their usage despite wanting to, those who often use it despite finding it severely impairs their ability to function, or those who are putting themselves in danger to secure access to the drug.</p><p>While an understanding that marijuana can be addictive has existed for some time, and the image of the pothead who smokes so much they can hardly function is prevalent in our society, the effects of legalization on addiction rates have somehow gone understudied until now. Importantly, previous studies had failed to consider usage rates amongst populations over the age of 25.</p><p>In the new study, published in <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2755276?utm_campaign=articlePDF%26utm_medium%3darticlePDFlink%26utm_source%3darticlePDF%26utm_content%3djamapsychiatry.2019.3254" target="_blank">JAMA Psychiatry</a>, focused on self-reported data on monthly drug use in four states where marijuana is now legal, Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon, from both before and after the drug was legalized in each state and compared it to others which have not yet legalized.</p><p>The data gave insights into the drug use habits of the respondents and specifically gave information about if they had smoked at all in the last month, the frequency of their drug use, and if they had ever had issues with how much they were using drugs.The researchers ultimately considered the responses of 505,796 individuals.</p><p>The increase in cannabis usage they found was <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/cannabis-use-disorder-rising-us-states-where-weed-legal-1471170" target="_blank">considerable</a>. The number of respondents over the age of 26 who claimed to have used the drug in the last month went up by 23% compared with their counterparts in states that have yet to legalize. Abuse of the drug by this group rose by 37%. </p><p>Teen usage rose by 25%, and addiction rates rose as well. This increase was small, though, and the authors have suggested it may be due to an unknown factor. The rate of usage or abuse for respondents between the ages of 18 and 25 did not increase at all. </p><p>After breaking the results down by demographics, the primary finding held; adults over the age of 26 are using marijuana more often when it is legalized, and they are starting to use it too much.</p>
The grain of salt<p>As in any study where findings are self-reported, the exact numbers you see here should be taken with a grain of salt. They could be slightly higher or lower. As this study relies on people self-reporting their usage of a drug that is still illegal in many places, it is very possible that the apparent spike in addiction rates is caused by more accurate reporting, as people who live in an area where pot is still illegal may be less likely to report smoking it every day.</p><p>And it should be repeated a thousand times over that correlation and causation are not the same thing. There could be some unknown factor causing these increases in each case. </p><p>Despite these qualifications, the study is still useful in giving us a general sense of what may happen in states that have yet to legalize. </p>
What does this mean for society and drug users?<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="BdVRmwgX" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="d5c2f9e3739c26170f98b48bf07a3444"> <div id="botr_BdVRmwgX_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/BdVRmwgX-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/BdVRmwgX-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/BdVRmwgX-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>While claims of "reefer madness" are greatly exaggerated, marijuana has several well established and thoroughly studied side <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis#Mental_health" target="_blank">effects</a>. While occasional use isn't terribly harmful, addiction can be. Lead author Magdalena Cerdá of New York University explains in the study that heavy marijuana use is associated with "psychological and physical health concerns, lower educational attainment, decline in social class, unemployment, and motor vehicle crashes."</p><p>A substantial increase in the number of people who are addicted to the stuff will incur costs to society down the line. <strong></strong></p><p>Of course, a 37% increase in problematic usage means that the percentage of adults smoking too much went from .9% to 1.23% of the population responding to the survey. This makes it far less prevalent than issues with alcohol, which affected around 6% of all Americans in <a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/prevalence-of-alcoholism-in-the-united-states-67876" target="_blank">2018</a>. </p><p>Recently, Big Think's <a href="https://bigthink.com/u/philip-perry" target="_self">Philip Perry</a> wrote a piece about how <a href="https://bigthink.com/want-to-protect-the-health-of-35-million-americans-legalize-cannabis" target="_self">legalization could improve the health of millions</a> by allowing the government to regulate the purity of commercially sold marijuana. This remains true. However, it must be weighed against the findings of this study, which suggests that at least some of these health gains will be wiped out by increased addiction rates.</p>
What does this mean for legalization efforts?<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="bnPA9J9g" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="429e1d17ba031b02d4e79b4f02f54ab5"> <div id="botr_bnPA9J9g_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/bnPA9J9g-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/bnPA9J9g-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/bnPA9J9g-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>The legalization steamroller will undoubtedly keep rolling along. While health concerns are one factor in the debate over marijuana, it is only one of many. In Illinois, where I live, weed will become legal on January 1<sup>st</sup> of 2020. The legalization campaign and <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-met-illinois-recreational-marijuana-legislation-20190531-story.html" target="_blank">legislation</a> were more concerned with issues of social justice, the failures of prohibition, and finding a new source of tax revenue (<a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-illinois-tickets-collection-agencies-20190703-20190711-gyf77w52mbcdxkaxpleeay277a-story.html" target="_blank">since we're half broke</a>) than with matters of potential addiction.</p><p>As Vox <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/13/20962924/marijuana-legalization-use-addiction-study" target="_blank">reports</a>, the authors of the study aren't suggesting that legalization shouldn't take place; that is another, broader debate. They merely wish to present the fact that legalization has a particular side effect that we should be aware of.</p><p>While this study is unlikely to change anybody's stance on if weed should be legalized or not, it does show us a critical element to be considered when discussing drug policy. No drug is perfectly safe, and we have reason to believe that legalizing marijuana will mean that more people will have a hard time with it. Let's hope that legalization proponents keep that in mind as they rack up their victories. </p>
Tea and coffee have known health benefits, but now we know they can work together.
Credit: NIKOLAY OSMACHKO from Pexels
- A new study finds drinking large amounts of coffee and tea lowers the risk of death in some adults by nearly two thirds.
- This is the first study to suggest the known benefits of these drinks are additive.
- The findings are great, but only directly apply to certain people.
Maybe you should enjoy this article with a cup of coffee or tea.<p> The <a href="https://drc.bmj.com/content/8/1/e001252?T=AU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study</a> involved 4,923 type 2 diabetics living in Japan. The average participant was 66 years old. All of the participants were taken from the rolls of the Fukuoka Diabetes Registry, a study geared at learning about the effects of new treatments and lifestyle changes on the health of diabetics. <br> <br> The participants filled out questionnaires concerning their health, diet, habits, and other factors. Among the questions were two focused on determining how much green tea or coffee, if any, the participants consumed over the course of a week. The health of the participants was recorded for five years. During this time, 309 of the test subjects died from a variety of causes. <br> <br> Subjects who drank more than one cup of tea or coffee per day demonstrated lower odds of dying than those who had none. Those who consumed the most tea and coffee, more than four and two cups a day, respectively, enjoyed the most significant reductions in their risk of death. This level of consumption was associated with a 40 percent lower risk of <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201020190129.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">death</a>. </p><p>Most interestingly, the effects of drinking tea and coffee appear to combine to reduce risk even further. Those who reported drinking two or three cups of tea a day and two or more cups of coffee were 51 percent less likely to die during the study, while those who drank a whopping four or more cups of tea and two or more cups of coffee had a 63 percent lower risk of <a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/diabetes-coffee-and-green-tea-might-reduce-death-risk" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">death</a>. </p>
So, should I start swimming in a vat of coffee and green tea?<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LY0E-JQxeoY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> Not quite. </p><p> The primary takeaway from this study is that Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes who drink a lot of green tea and/or coffee die less often than similar people who do not. If this effect is caused by something in the drink, lifestyle choices people who drink that much tea all make, or something else remains unknown. The finding must be considered an association at this point. <br> <br> The eye-popping reductions in mortality rates are compared to the risk of death of others in the study. The people who died reported drinking less tea and coffee than those who lived. Unless you have several demographic and conditional similarities to the subjects of this study, you probably won't suddenly be at a two-thirds lower risk of death than your peers because you drink green tea. </p><p> Like all studies that depend on self-reporting, it is also possible that people misstated how much they consumed any one item. The study also did not look into other factors like socioeconomic status or education level, also known to impact death rates and potentially linked to coffee and tea consumption. </p><p> However, it is yet another study in the pile that suggests that <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/top-13-evidence-based-health-benefits-of-coffee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">coffee</a> and <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/top-10-evidence-based-health-benefits-of-green-tea" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">green tea</a> are good for you. That much is increasingly <a href="https://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/health-benefits-linked-to-drinking-tea" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">agreed</a><a href="https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/discover-health/health-benefits-coffee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> upon</a>. This study also suggests the benefits are additive, which is a new development.</p><p><br> So, while it isn't time to start the IV drip of green tea, a cup or two probably won't <a href="https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20201022/coffee-green-tea-might-extend-life-for-folks-with-type-2-diabetes" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">hurt</a>. </p>
But most city dwellers weren't seeing the science — they were seeing something out of Blade Runner.
On Sept. 9, many West Coast residents looked out their windows and witnessed a post-apocalyptic landscape: silhouetted cars, buildings and people bathed in an overpowering orange light that looked like a jacked-up sunset.