The NY Times has an article that has an interesting combination of topics: (a) the new movie by Spike Jonze "Her" where Joaquin Phoenix's character develops an "intimate" relationship with an AI program that is a "relationship adaptation program" (voiced by the actress Scarlett Johansson), (b) current and future software and hardware that will either "enhance" computer-mediate relationship interaction (i.e., sex) between people or "solo" with the computer, and (c) implicit in the movie "Her" as well as "standalone" computer products is a variation of the Turing test, one form of which has been defined as:
|The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent |behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. |In the original illustrative example, a human judge engages in natural |language conversations with a human and a machine designed to |generate performance indistinguishable from that of a human being. |All participants are separated from one another. If the judge cannot |reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have |passed the test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#The_Imitation_Game The NY Times article can be accessed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/fashion/Sex-toys-cybersex-high-tech.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131226&_r=0 One of the products reviewed in the article is a "remote touching" program where two people wearing the products (i.e., underwear) interact via a video Skype program and touching parts of their partner's underwear on their local screen produces "stimulation" in their partner's underwear. Here's a YoutTube video that shows how it's done: http://youtu.be/qb7DN3kpl2o This is a product some might consider for Valentine's Day, birthdays, or next Christmas. And, yes, it provides new meaning to the expression "party in my pants". The movie "Her" raises questions about relationships and intimacy and whether another human being is actually necessary. I have not seen the movie yet but have read reviews and it suggests that one can develop a meaningful relationship with a program, especially if it adaptive (i.e., learns to modify how it responds to the person it is interacting with). For some people (I'm just speaking for males) certain characteristics, some general and some specifically female/feminine, are all they want with another person and all the other stuff (e.g., how to live together without killing each other, figuring out finances for the couples, whose family they visit for which holiday, etc.) is just noise or sturm and drang. In this case, the AI program Samantha in "Her" appears to pass the Turing test. But this probably should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Joseph Weizenbaum's ELIZA program which simulates a Rogerian therapist (George Lucas's first film "THX 1138" appears to use an ELIZA like program to make people feel better). People readily accept ELIZA as a probably human being who displays empathy, insight, warmth, and understanding. However, Weizenbaum's point was that the program actually has none of these human capabilities, indeed, it is a pretty dumb, simple program (see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#ELIZA_and_PARRY and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA ). So, relationships, love, and intimacy/sex: are they really complex things or really, really simple? Is the real problem finding the person (or software) that lives up to your expectations and is not judgmental? Perhaps software is best for that task. ;-) -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=32201 or send a blank email to leave-32201-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
