Sexuality - PhilArchive

29
Sexuality By John Danaher (forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook of Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, edited by Markus Dubber, Frank Pasquale and Sunit Das) Abstract: Sex is an important part of human life. It is a source of pleasure and intimacy, and is integral to many people’s self-identity. This chapter examines the opportunities and challenges posed by the use of AI in how humans express and enact their sexualities. It does so by focusing on three main issues. First, it considers the idea of digisexuality, which according to McArthur and Twist (2017) is the label that should be applied to those ‘whose primary sexual identity comes through the use of technology’, particularly through the use of robotics and AI. While agreeing that this phenomenon is worthy of greater scrutiny, the chapter questions whether it is necessary or socially desirable to see this as a new form of sexual identity. Second, it looks at the role that AI can play in facilitating human-to-human sexual contact, focusing in particular on the use of self-tracking and predictive analytics in optimising sexual and intimate behaviour. There are already a number of apps and services that promise to use AI to do this, but they pose a range of ethical risks that need to be addressed at both an individual and societal level. Finally, it considers the idea that a sophisticated form of AI could be an object of love. Can we be truly intimate with something that has been ‘programmed’ to love us? Contrary to the widely-held view, this chapter argues that this is indeed possible. Introduction In early 2017, the world bore witness to its first human-robot marriage. Zheng Jiajia, a Chinese engineer and AI expert, hadn’t always intended to marry a robot. He had spent years searching for a (female) human partner and grew frustrated at his lack of success. 1 So he decided to put his engineering skills to the test and 1 A not uncommon problem in China given its skewed gender ratios. See World Economic Forum, Global Gender Gap Report 2018, p 63, available at http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf; and also Viola Zhou ‘China has world’s most skewed sex ratio at birth – again’, South China Morning Post, 27 th October 2016, available at https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2040544/chinas-

Transcript of Sexuality - PhilArchive

Sexuality

ByJohnDanaher(forthcomingintheOxfordHandbookofEthicsofArtificialIntelligence,editedbyMarkusDubber,FrankPasqualeandSunitDas)Abstract:Sexisanimportantpartofhumanlife.Itisasourceofpleasureandintimacy,andisintegraltomanypeople’sself-identity.ThischapterexaminestheopportunitiesandchallengesposedbytheuseofAIinhowhumansexpressandenacttheirsexualities.Itdoessobyfocusingonthreemainissues.First,itconsiderstheideaofdigisexuality,whichaccordingtoMcArthurandTwist(2017)isthelabelthatshouldbeappliedtothose‘whoseprimarysexualidentitycomesthroughtheuseoftechnology’,particularlythroughtheuseofroboticsandAI.Whileagreeingthatthisphenomenonisworthyofgreaterscrutiny,thechapterquestionswhetheritisnecessaryorsociallydesirabletoseethisasanewformofsexualidentity.Second,itlooksattherolethatAIcanplayinfacilitatinghuman-to-humansexualcontact,focusinginparticularontheuseofself-trackingandpredictiveanalyticsinoptimisingsexualandintimatebehaviour.TherearealreadyanumberofappsandservicesthatpromisetouseAItodothis,buttheyposearangeofethicalrisksthatneedtobeaddressedatbothanindividualandsocietallevel.Finally,itconsiderstheideathatasophisticatedformofAIcouldbeanobjectoflove.Canwebetrulyintimatewithsomethingthathasbeen‘programmed’toloveus?Contrarytothewidely-heldview,thischapterarguesthatthisisindeedpossible.IntroductionInearly2017,theworldborewitnesstoitsfirsthuman-robotmarriage.Zheng

Jiajia,aChineseengineerandAIexpert,hadn’talwaysintendedtomarryarobot.

Hehadspentyearssearchingfora(female)humanpartnerandgrewfrustrated

athislackofsuccess.1Sohedecidedtoputhisengineeringskillstothetestand

1AnotuncommonprobleminChinagivenitsskewedgenderratios.SeeWorldEconomicForum,GlobalGenderGapReport2018,p63,availableathttp://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf;andalsoViolaZhou‘Chinahasworld’smostskewedsexratioatbirth–again’,SouthChinaMorningPost,27thOctober2016,availableathttps://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2040544/chinas-

createhisownroboticpartner.Hemarried‘her’inasimple,traditional

ceremonythatwaswitnessedbyhismotherandfriends.2Jiajia’srobotwasn’t

particularlyimpressive.Accordingtothereports,‘she’wasahuman-sizeddoll

withalimitedabilitytorecognizeChinesecharactersandspeaksomebasic

phrases.ButJiajiaplannedtoupgrade‘her’inthenearfuture.

NotlongafterJiajia’snuptials,AikikhoKondo,a35year-oldJapaneseman

livinginTokyo,marriedHatsuneMiku,aholographicvirtualrealitysingerwho

floatsinsideadesktopdevice.3Kondotoofeltunluckyin(human)loveand

plumpedforanartificialpartner.Indoingso,Kondowantedtoberecognisedas

amemberofasexualminorityofpeoplewhoarenotinterestedinhumanlovers.

NeitherJiajianorKondoisalone.Thereisanactiveonlinecommunityof

‘iDollators’whofavourintimacywithartificialdollsoverhumans.Andthereare

nowseveralcompanieseagerlyracingtocreatemoresophisticatedroboticand

artificialcompanions,capableofprovidingtheiruserswithbothsexualintimacy

andemotionalsupport.Weshouldnotbesurprisedbythistrend.Sexand

intimacyareimportantpartsofhumanlifeandtheyhavealwaysbeenmediated

andassistedbytechnology.Sextoysandsexdollscanbefoundgoingback

demographic-time-bomb-still-ticking-worlds-most

2KristinHuang,‘Chineseengineer‘marries’robotafterfailingtofindahumanwife’,SouthChinaMorningPost,4thApril2017,availableathttps://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2084389/chinese-https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2084389/chinese-engineer-marries-robot-after-failing-find-human-wife3AFP-JIJI,‘Loveinanotherdimension:Japaneseman'marries'HatsuneMikuhologram’,TheJapanTimes,12November2018,availableathttps://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/12/national/japanese-man-marries-virtual-reality-singer-hatsune-miku-hologram/#.XFm9vs_7TOQ

thousandsofyearsbackinthearchaeologicalrecord.Thefactthatthelatest

waveoftechnologiesisbeingleveragedtowardsexualendsispartofthislong-

standingtrend.4

Thischapterexaminestheethicalopportunitiesandchallengesposedby

theuseofAIinhowhumansexpressandenacttheirsexualities.Itdoessoby

focusingonthreemainissues.First,itconsidersthequestionofsexualidentity

andasksifweshouldapplyanewsexualidentitylabel–‘digisexuality’–tothose

whoexpressordirecttheirsexualitiestowardsdigital/artificialpartners.5While

agreeingthatthisphenomenonisworthyofgreaterscrutiny,thechapterargues

thatweshouldbeverycautiousaboutrecognisingthisasanewformofsexual

identityasdoingsocanhavestigmatisinganddivisiveeffects.Second,itlooksat

therolethatAIcanplayinfacilitatingandassistinghuman-to-humansexual

intimacy,focusinginparticularontheuseofself-trackingandpredictive

analyticsinoptimisingintimatebehaviour.Itaskswhetherthereissomething

ethicallyobjectionableabouttheuseofsuchAIassistance.Itarguesthatthere

isn’t,thoughthereareethicalrisksthatneedtobeaddressed.Finally,it

considerstheideathatasophisticatedformofAIcouldbeanobjectoflove,

despiteithavingbeen‘programmed’toloveus.Contrarytothewidely-held

view,thischapterarguesthatthisisindeedpossible.

4KateDevlin,TurnedOn:Science,SexandRobots,(London:BloomsburySigma,2018);andHallieLieberman,Buzz:TheStimulatingHistoryoftheSexToy(NewYork:PegasusBooks,2017)5NeilMcArthurandMarkieTwist,‘Theriseofdigisexuality:therapeuticchallengesandpossibilities’(2017)SexandRelationshipTherapy32(3-4):334-344

AIandSexualIdentity

Identityiscentraltohumanexistence.Weallseektodefineandunderstand

ourselvesandothersintermsofdifferentidentitylabels.6Sexualidentitylabels

areanimportantpartofthispatternofclassification.Homosexuality,bisexuality

andhetereosexualityareallnowrecognisedand,forthemostpart,toleratedas

distinctformsofsexualidentity(thoughitwasnotalwaysthus).

Thegeneraltendencytoclassifyourselvesandothersinthismanner

createsatemptationwhenitcomestohowweunderstandthose,likeZheng

JiajiaandAikikhoKondo,whoexpressandenactasexualpreferenceforartificial

partners.Intheirarticle‘Theriseofthedigisexual’,NeilMcArthurandMarkie

Twistsuccumbtothistemptation.7Theyarguethattechnologyplaysan

importantroleinhowpeopleenacttheirsexualdesiresandthatwhenitcomes

tothosewhodisplayamarkedpreferenceforartificialpartners,weshould

recognisethattheyexhibitanewtypeofsexualidentity,namely‘digisexuality’.

Astheyputit:“Manypeoplewillfindthattheirexperienceswiththistechnology

becomeintegraltotheirsexualidentity,andsomewillcometopreferthemto

directsexualinteractionswithhumans.Weproposetolabelthosepeoplewho

considersuchexperiencesessentialtotheirsexualidentity,“digisexuals””.8

McArthurandTwistmakethisargumentwithcircumspectionandcare.

Theypointoutthatsexualorientationsandidentitiesoccuralongacontinuum.

6KwameAnthonyAppiah,TheLiesthatBind:RethinkingIdentity(London:ProfileBooks,2018);andFrancisFukuyamaIdentity:TheDemandforDignityandthePoliticsofResentment(NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,2018).7McArthurandTwist,n58McArthurandTwist,n5,pp334-335

Somepeoplewilloccasionallyusetechnologytogettheirkicksbutwillretain

strongpreferencesforhuman-to-humancontact.Theysuggestthatonlythose

wholiveprimarilyatoneextremeendofthespectrumdeservethelabel

‘digisexual’.9Theyalsorecognisethatpeoplebelongingtothisgroupwillalmost

certainlysufferfromstigmatisationasaresultoftheirpronouncedsexual

preference,butthencounterthatthissimplyneedstobeunderstoodand

combatted.10Insayingthis,theymakethecaseforusingthe‘digisexuality’label

fromalargelydetached,scientificperspective,suggestingthatthisissomething

thatneedstobeacknowledgedandstudied,notscornedandmaligned.

Iagreethatthereisaphenomenonhereworthyofgreaterscientific

scrutiny,butIthinkweshouldbeverycautiousaboutencouragingthe

widespreaduseofanewsexualidentitylabel,suchas‘digisexuality’,evenfor

suchscientificpurposes.Admittedlythisisnotsomethingthatisnecessarily

underourcontrolsince,aspointedoutabove,weareconstantlyinthebusiness

oflabelingandclassifyingoneanother.Nevertheless,totheextentthatwecan

controlourtendencytolabelandclassifyoneanother,weshouldavoidthe

temptationtorecogniseanewminorityofdigisexuals.Thisstanceisnot

motivatedbyanybigotryordesiretosuppressanewtruthabouthuman

sexuality.Itismotivatedbythedesiretoavoidpathologisingand‘othering’what

shouldbeviewedaspartoftheordinaryrangeofhumansexualdesire.

9McArthurandTwist,n5,p33810McArthurandTwist,n5,p338

Theargumentforthisviewhastwoprongstoit.Thefirstistoclaimthat

therecognitionofaparticularsetofsexualdesiresasadistinctiveidentityor

orientationisnotmetaphysicallymandated.Inotherwords,thereisnothingin

therawdataofhumansexualdesirethatdemandsthatweapplyaparticular

labelorclassificationtothosedesires.Thesecondprongistoarguethattothe

extentthatwedoapplysuchlabels,thereisatendencyforustoignore

importantnuancesintheactualrawdataofhumansexualdesireandforthisto

haveperniciousconsequences.Consequently,sincegroupingsomesetofsexual

desiresintoadistinctiveidentityisnotmetaphysicallymandated,norisit

sociallyorethicallydesirable,weshouldresistthetemptationtodoso.

Let’sexplorebothprongsoftheargumentinmoredetail,startingwith

theclaimthatrecognisinganewsexualidentityisnotmetaphysicallywarranted.

InmakingthisclaimIaminspiredbyatheoryofsexualorientationdevelopedby

SarayAyala:theconceptualacttheoryofsexualorientation.11Thegistofthe

theoryisasfollows.Humanshavemanydifferentphenomenologicalexperiences

intheirlifetimes.Inmanycases,theseexperiencesaremessyandnotfinely

differentiated.Thinkofourauditoryorcolourexperiences.Thoughwedo

perceivedistinctionsbetweendifferentshadesanddifferentmusicalnotes,the

realityofsoundwavesandlightwavesisthattheyblendorfadeintoone

another.Itisonlythroughtheuseofconventionallinguisticlabelsthatwebring

someorderandstructuretothephenomenologicalsoupofexperience.What’s

more,somepeople’sconceptualtoolkitenablesthemtomorefinelydifferentiate

11SarayAyala,‘SexualOrientationandChoice’(2018)JournalofSocialOntology,3(2):249-265.

theirphenomenologicalexperiencesthanothers.Iknowpeoplewhocaneasily

recogniseanddistinguishdifferentnotesandscalesinapieceofmusic.Idonot

havethisability.Ilumptogetherexperiencesthatotherscansplit.

ThepsychologistLisaFeldmanBarretthasarguedthatthissame

phenomenonunderliesouremotionalexperiences.12Theinitial

phenomenologicalrealityofemotionisarawfeelingthatgetsinterpreted

throughaparticularconventionalconceptualtoolkit.Wetranslateourraw

experienceintothefeelingof‘anger’,‘sorrow’or‘joy’(andsoon).Different

culturesparsethephenomenologicalrealityofemotionindifferentways,

groupingandorganisingfeelingsinwaysthatarenotimmediatelyrecognisable

toculturaloutsiders.

Ayalaarguesthatthesameistrueforhowweexperiencesexualdesire.

Overthecourseofalifetime,peoplewillexperiencesexualdesire,arousaland

releaseinresponsetomanydifferentthings.Oftentimesthedesireswillbe

directedatotherpeople,butsometimestheywon’t.Peoplehavebeenknownto

experiencearousalinresponsetoallsortsofenvironmentalstimuli.Whatthen

happensisthatpeoplegrouptheirsexualexperiencestogetherinordertomake

senseoftheirsexualidentitiesandorientations.Indoingthis,someexperiences

areignored,suppressedanddiscounted,whileothersareaccentuated.Youwill

probablydiscountallthosetimesyougotarousedbythevibrationsofthe

schoolbus,butnotthosetimesyougotarousedwhenyoudancedwithyour

12LisaFeldmanBarrett,‘SolvingtheEmotionParadox:CategorizationandtheExperienceofEmotion’(2006)PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview10(1):20-46

classmateattheschooldance.Youwon’tcallyourselfanautomotive-fetishistno

matterhowmanytimesyougotarousedontheschoolbus.Likewise,and

perhapsmorerealistically,Isuspecttherearemanypeoplewhoprimarilygain

sexualreleasethroughmasturbationandnotthroughintercoursewithanother

humanbeing.Nevertheless,Isuspectthatthemajorityofthosepeopledonot

classifythemselvesasavowedautoeroticists.Theydon’tinterprettheir

masturbatoryexperiencesthroughanidentity-label.Theyseethoseexperiences

asanimportantpartofthefullrangeofdesirablesexualexperiences,allofwhich

arestillbeingactivelypursued.

Thepointhereisthatthesameislikelytobetrueofthosewhogettheir

sexualkicksthroughtechnology,eventhosewhoprimarilydosowithartificial

partners.ConsiderZhouJiajiaandAikhikhoKondo,forexample.Bothofthem

claimtohavesoughtoutartificialpartnersafterfailingtofindloveamongtheir

fellowhumans.Thiswouldsuggestthattheyhaven’tcompletelylostthisformof

sexualdesire.Thedangeristhatifweapply,andencouragethemtoapply,an

identity-labeltotheirnewfoundsexualpreferences,wealsoencouragethemto

discountorsuppresstheotheraspectsoftheirsexualaffect.Theystart

exaggeratingpartofamorediverseanddifferentiatedphenomenologicalreality.

Thisbringsustothesecondprongoftheargument:thatapplyingidentity

labelscanbesociallyandethicallypernicious.Youmightbeprimedtobe

scepticalaboutthis.Youmightpointtootheridentitypoliticalmovementsin

supportofyourscepticismandarguethatowninganidentitylabelcanbeboth

politicallyandpersonallyempowering.Ifyoubelongtoagroupyoufeelless

aloneintheworld.Similarly,ifyouandothermembersofyourgrouparesocially

disadvantaged,bandingtogethercanhelpyoutostandupandagitateforlegal

rightsandprotections.Thishasbeentrueforthefeministmovementandthegay

rightsmovement.Butitisnoteworthythatbothofthesemovementsarosein

responsetopre-existingprejudiceanddiscriminatoryclassification.People

withinthosegroupswerealreadysubjecttoanoppressiveidentity-labelingand

hencesawtheneedtobandtogether,weartheirlabelasamatterofpride,and

workforsocialreform.Intheabsenceofthatpre-existingprejudice,thecasefor

identity-labelingismuchlesspersuasive.Identity-labelingtendstoencourage

divisivenessandothering–the‘us’against‘them’mentality.Peoplequickly

appointthemselvesastheguardiansoftheidentity,creatingcriteriafor

determiningwhobelongsandwhodoesnot.Furthermore,ifbelongingtoa

particularidentitycategorybringswithitcertainsocialbenefitsandlegal

protections,peoplemightbeencouragedtoover-interprettheirexperiencesso

thattheycanfitwithintherelevantgroup:theyforcethemselvesintoagroupso

thattheycanbelong,therebydoingviolencetotheiractualexperience.Inshort,

theidentity-labelingcanfoster,justasoftenasitcancombat,socialdivisionand

polarisation.

Tobeclear,theclaimisnotthatallidentity-labelsareperniciousor

scientificallyinaccurate.Somelabelshavesocialandscientificvalue.Theclaimis

ratherthatidentity-labelshavepowerandshouldbetreatedwithcaution.Sexual

phenomenologyisoftenmorediverseanddifferentiatedthanouridentitylabels

allow.Thismeansthatlumpingsomeoneintoaparticularcategoryisoftennot

warranted.Recognisingandvalorisingtheidentitylabelmayencourageand

incentivisepeopletoforcethemselvestofitintoacategorytowhichtheydonot

belong.So,unlesswearetryingtocombatsomepre-existingsocialprejudiceor

stigmatisation,weshouldveryreluctanttoclassifypeopleas‘digisexuals’.This

doesnotmeanthatwemustignoretherolethatartificialpartnersplayin

people’ssexuallives,orthatwecannotstudythevariousmanifestationsof

‘digisexualities’.Itjustmeansweshouldavoidlabelingpeopleas‘digisexuals’(or

anyothercognatetermlike‘robosexual’).Weshouldacceptthisasjustpartof

thenormalrangeofhumansexualexperience.

AIandSexualAssistance

Sextoysandothersexaidshavelongbeenusedtoassistandcomplement

human-to-humansexualactivity,andAIsandrobotsarealreadywidelyusedto

assistandcomplementnon-sexualhumanactivity.Itshouldbenosurprisethen

tofindAIbeingharnessedtowardsexuallyassistiveends.Wealreadyseesmart

sextoysthattrytolearnfromuserdatatooptimisesexualpleasure;‘quantified

self’appsthatenableuserstotrackandoptimiseaspectsoftheirsexual

performance;andsimpleAIassistantsthathelpwithintimatebehaviour,

includingappsthathelptoautomateorassistwithsendingintimate

communicationstoyourpartner.13DoestheuseofsuchAI-basedsexual

13Fordiscussionsofthedifferentappsandservices,see:DeborahLupton,‘Quantifiedsex:Acriticalanalysisofsexualandreproductiveself-trackingusingapps’,(2015)Culture,HealthandSexuality17(4):440–53;KarenLevy,‘Intimatesurveillance’(2014)IdahoLawReview51:679–93;JohnDanaher,SvenNyholmandBrianEarp‘TheQuantifiedRelationship’(2018)AmericanJournalofBioethics18(2):1-19;JohnDanaher,‘TowardanEthicsofAIAssistants:AnInitialFramework’(2018)PhilosophyandTechnology31(4):629-653;andEvanSelinger‘Today’sAppsareTurningusIntoSociopaths’WIRED26February2014-availableathttps://www.wired.com/2014/02/outsourcing-humanity-apps/;andEvanSelinger,‘Don’toutsourceyourdatingLife’CNN:Edition2May2014-

assistantsraiseanysignificantethicalconcerns?Inpreviouswork,I,alongwith

mycolleaguesSvenNyholmandBrianEarp,analysedeightdifferentethical

concernsonemighthaveabouttheuseofAIinintimaterelationships.14Inthe

interestsofbrevity,Iwilldiscussfourkeyethicalconcernshere:

ThePrivacyConcern:Thisisthebigone.Thisistheconcernthattheuse

ofAIassistantsinintimatesexualrelationshipsconstitutesamajorassaulton

personalprivacy.Thiscouldbebecausepartnersuseservicestospyonone

anotherwithoutconsent.Thisisalreadyaprobleminabusiveintimate

relationships.15ItcouldalsobebecauseAIassistantsareownedandcontrolled

bythirdparties(e.g.companies/corporations)whocapturesexualdatafrom

theirusersandusethistooptimiseandmarkettheirproductsandservices.

Sometimesthisisdonewiththeconsentoftheusers;sometimesitisnot.Indeed,

severallawsuitshavealreadybeensettledbetweencompaniesandusersof

smartsextoysduetothefactthatdatawascollectedfromthosedeviceswithout

theusers’consent.16Ofcourse,violationsofprivacyareageneralconcernwith

digitaltechnology,extendingfarbeyondthesexualorintimateusecase,17but

onemightarguethattheethicalconcernsarehigherinthiscasegiventheunique

importanceofsexualprivacy.

availableathttp://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/01/opinion/selinger-outsourcing-activities/index.html(accessed29/11/2016).14Danaher,NyholmandEarp,n1315Levy,n1316AlexHern,‘VibratormakerorderedtopayoutC$4mfortrackingusers'sexualactivity’,TheGuardian14March2017,availableathttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/14/we-vibe-vibrator-tracking-users-sexual-habits17WoodrowHartzog,Privacy’sBlueprint:TheBattletoControltheDesignofNewTechnologies(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2018);andShoshanaZuboff,TheAgeofSurveillanceCapitalism(London:ProfileBooks2019)

TheDisengagementConcern:ThisistheconcernthatAIsexual

assistantsmaydistractusfrom,orencourageustodisengagefrom,sexually

intimateactivityandtherebycorrodeorundermineacorepartofthevalueof

thatactivity.Theargumentwouldbethatalotofthegoodofsexualintimacy

(andotherformsofintimacy)stemsfrombeingpresentinthemoment,i.e.

enjoyingthesexualactivityforwhatitis.Butcanyoureallybepresentifyouare

usingsomesex-assistanttotrackthenumberofcaloriesyouburn,orthedecibel

levelreached,orthenumberofthruststhattakeplaceduringsexualactivity?

(These,incidentally,areallrealexamplesofsomeoftheusestowhich

descriptiveandpredictiveanalyticshavebeenputinintimateapps.)18Similarly,

butinanon-sexualcase,EvanSelingerworriesabouttheuseofautomatedand

AI-assistedintimatecommunicationappsonthegroundsthattheycreatethe

impressionthatsomeoneisthinkingaboutandcaringaboutanotherpersonina

particularmomentwheninfacttheyarenotandarelettingtheappdothework

forthem.19Thedisengagementconcernis,onceagain,ageneralconcernabout

digitaltechnology–thinkofallthosecomplaintsaboutthe“anti-social”useof

smartphonesatpartiesandmeetings–butwemightworrythatitisparticularly

problematicintheintimatecasebecauseofhowimportantbeingpresentisto

intimacy.

TheMisdirectionConcern:Relatedtothepreviousconcern,thisisa

concernaboutthekindsofthingsthatAIsexualassistantsmightassistpeople

18Danaher,NyholmandEarp,n13.19Selingern13

with.AIassistantsingeneraltendtoprovideuserswithinformationorprompt

themtodocertainthings.ThesameislikelytooccurwithAIsexualassistants:

theymightgiveusersinformationabouthowtooptimisetheirsexual

experiencesorpromptthemtotryparticularactivities.Oneworryisthatthe

assistantscouldencourageactivitiesthatarenotconducivetogoodsexual

experience.Thisis,indeed,alreadyanexpressedconcernaboutthevarioussex

trackingappsthathavebeencreated.20Asnoted,thoseappsoftenencourage

userstofocusonthingslikethenumberofcaloriesburnedduringsex,the

numberofthrustsduringsex,andthedecibellevelreachedduringsex.One

reasonforthisisthatitisrelativelyeasytotrackandmeasurethesethings.But

thereisnoreasontothinkthatanyofthemiscorrelatedwithgoodsex.Onthe

contrary,focusingonthosemeasuresmightactuallyunderminegoodsex.This

worryisdistinctfromthepreviousonebecauseitisnotabouttheuserbeing

takenoutofthemomentbutratheraboutthemdoingthingsthatarenot

particularlypleasurable/valuableinthemoment.

TheIdeologicalConcern:Afinalconcern,whichisalsorelatedtothe

twoprecedingones,hastodowiththeideologicalimpactofAIsexualassistants

onintimaterelationships.Theconcernisthattheseassistantsmightimposea

certainmodelofwhatanidealintimate/sexualrelationshipisonthepeoplewho

makeuseofthem.Theymight,forexample,recreateandreinforcegender

stereotypesaboutsexualdesireandpreference.KarenLevy,forexample,has

arguedthatmanyintimatetrackingappsreinforcetheviewthatwomenarethe

20OnthiscriticismseeLupton,n13andLevyn13

subjectsofsurveillanceandsexualcontrol.21Othersarguethattheappsmight

encourageaneconomicorexchange-basedmodelofintimaterelationsovera

moreinformal-reciprocationmodel.Thisisbecausethedevicesmightencourage

userstotrackwhodoeswhatforwhomandencouragethemto

optimise/maximisecertainmetrics,alltothedetrimentofwhatatrulyvaluable

intimaterelationshipshouldbe.22

Whatcanbesaidinresponsetotheseconcerns?Well,theprivacyconcern

isprobablythemostserious.IfpartnersuseAIassistantstospyononeanother

ormanipulateoneanother’sbehaviourinanon-transparentway,thenthis

wouldbeamajorworry.Itcouldprovideassistanceandcoverfordominating

andabusiverelationships.Suchrelationshipswillexistintheabsenceof

technologicalassistance,butthetechnologymightmakeiteasiertoimplement

certainformsofdominatingcontrol.Itseemsuncontroversialthentosuggest

thatanyapporservicethatmakesiteasyforoneintimatepartnertospyon

anotherwithouttheother’sconsentshould,ifpossible,bebanned.Spyingby

thirdpartiesshouldalsobelimitedbutistrickiertomanage.Itdoesseemtobe

inherenttodigitaltechnologythatitfacilitatessomekindoftrackingand

surveillance.Wecantrytomitigatetheharmthatisdonebythistrackingand

surveillancethroughrobustlegalprotectionofindividualprivacy.Thislegal

protectionwouldforcethecompaniesthatprovidetherelevantappsand

servicestoputinplacemeasuresthatpreventnon-transparentandnon-

21Levy,n1322Danaher,NyholmandEarp,n13,pp7-8

consensualusesofindividualdata.TheEU’sGeneralDataProtectionRegulation

isastepintherightdirectioninthisregard.

Butitmaywellbethatpeoplearewillingtowaivetheirprivacyrightsin

ordertomakeuseofassistivetechnologies.Thisappearstobethecaseformany

peoplealready.Howmanytimeshaveyouconsentedtodigitalsurveillanceout

ofconvenience?Privacyadvocatescancounterthatthisissimplybecausepeople

donotfullyappreciatethedamagethatcanbedonebythemisuseoftheir

personaldata,butevenstill,formanypeople,convenientaccesstodigital

servicesisoftenfavouredoverprivacy.Thissuggeststhatwhetherornotpeople

arewillingtoforegosomeprivacywhenusingAIsexassistantsmightdependon

whethertheyfindthoseassistantsusefulintheirintimatelives.Iftheydo,then

sexualprivacymightbesignificantlyeroded.

Thisiswheretheotherthreeobjectionscomein.Theyprovidesome

reasontoquestionwhetherAIsexassistantswillinfactbeuseful,highlighting

thevariouswaysinwhichtheymightundermineorcorrodeintimate

relationships.Althougheachofthethreeconcernshassomemerit,theycanbe

overstated.Therearethreereasonsforthis.First,itisimportanttobearinmind

thatthereisnosinglemodelfortheidealintimaterelationship.Different

relationshipmodelsworkfordifferentsetsofpeopleatdifferenttimes.Appsand

assistiveAIthatseemuseless,distractingormisdirectedtosomepeople,might

beuseful,engagingandfulfillingtoothers.Eventheseeminglycomicalexamples

ofsextrackingappsthatgetpeopletoquantifycertainaspectsoftheirsexlife

might,forsomepeople,leadtoamorepleasurableandfulfillingsexlife.Aslong

aspeoplearenotforcedorcompelledtouseparticularAIsexassistants,their

useneednotleadtotheideologicalimpositionofaspecificmodeloftheideal

relationship.Adiversityofappsandassistantscouldprovideroomforpartners

toexploredifferentpossibilitiesinaccordancewiththeirownneedsandwishes.

Second,whilesomeoftheearlyattemptstoprovideAIassistancemightseem

crudeandunsophisticated,theyarelikelytoimproveovertimeandprovide

moreusefulguidance.Thisisbecausethereisreasontothinkthatthetracking

andquantificationmadepossiblebysexandrelationshipappscanbeusedto

goodeffect.Togiveoneexampleofthis,theresearchcarriedoutbytheGottman

Instituteonsuccessfulrelationshipssuggeststhatrelationshipscanbeimproved

ifpartnersexplicitlyrecorddetailsoftheirintimatelives,andfollowcertain

ritualsofconnection.23Theserecommendationsarebasedonextensive,

longitudinalresearchonwhatmakesforasuccessfulintimaterelationship.

Digitalassistantscouldmakeiteasiertoimplementtheserecommendations.

Indeed,theGottmanInstitutealreadyoffersafreesmartphoneappthathelps

couplesimplementsomeofthem.24Onecaneasilyimaginemoresophisticated,

AI-basedversionsofthisappcomingonstreaminthefutureandprovidingfar

moreeffectiveandpersonalisedassistance.Third,totheextentthatworries

remainabouttheeffectofthesetechnologiesonsexualintimacy,theseworries

canbemitigated(toalargeextent)byencouragingmorethoughtfulengagement

withthetechnology.Theproblemsoutlinedaboveareattheirmostsevereif

peopleuseAIassistantsasasubstituteforthinkingforthemselvesandnotasa

complementtothinkingforthemselves.Iftherecouldbeonemajor

23Seehttps://www.gottman.com/24Availableathttps://www.gottman.com/couples/apps/

recommendationmadetothedesignersofAIintimateassistantsitwouldbeto

includeclearwarningstousersthattheservicesandrecommendationsoffered

bytheseassistantsarenotapanaceatoalltheirsexualwoes.Theycanbe

beneficial,butonlyiftheuser(s)criticallyreflectsontheroleoftheservicein

theirownintimatelives.Includingpromptsforsuchcriticalreflectioncouldbea

focusfordesignerswhowishtoencouragetheethicaluseofAIsexassistants.

Thebottomlineis,then,thatalthoughAIassistantscouldundermineand

corrodeourintimateandsexuallives,thereissomereasonforoptimism.The

careful,criticalandnon-dogmaticuseofsuchassistantsmightcomplementand

improveourintimatebehaviour.

AIandLove

Let’scloseoutthischapterbyreturningtothetwomenwhosestoriesI

toldintheintroduction:ZhengJiajiaandAikikhoKondo.Bothofthem‘married’

artificialbeings.Anobviousquestiontoaskiswhattheethicalorphilosophical

statusofthosemarriagesmightbe?Aretheymanifestationsofgenuinelyloving

relationshipsoraretheyslightlyunusualsexualfetishes?Attheoutset,Iwould

emphasisethatanyanswertothisquestionshouldnotbetakentostigmatiseor

shamethosewhoprefersuchrelationships.Butthequestionisworthasking

sinceweattachalotofvaluetolovingrelationshipsandifwecouldhaveloving

relationshipswithAIsandrobots,itmightprovidereasontocreatethem.

Thereis,however,noshortageofoppositiontotheideathatonecouldbe

inalovingrelationshipwitharobot.DylanEvans,forexample,hasarguedthat

thereissomethingparadoxicalabouttheideaofroboticlover.25Hisargument

focusesontheasymmetricalnatureoftherelationshipbetweenahumananda

robot.Presumably,anyroboticloverwillbeprogrammedto‘love’theirhuman

partner.Iftherobotcouldchoosetheirpartnerthenwhatwouldbethepointin

creatingit?Theadvantageofhavingarobotloveroverahumanloveristhefact

thattherobothastoloveyou:thatyouhaveultimatecontroloveritsresponses

toyou(thisdesireforcontrolseemstobeoneofthemotivationsbehindZheng

JiajiaandAikikhoKondo’sactions).Butthiscontrolcomesatacost,accordingto

Evans,becauseacorepartofwhatpeoplewantinalovingrelationshipisa

partner(orpartners)whofreelychoosestobewiththem.Asheputsit,people

wanttheirlover’scommitmenttothemto“bethefruitofanongoingchoice,

ratherthaninflexibleandunreflexivebehaviorpatterns”.26

MichaelHauskelleralsoarguesagainsttheideaofaroboticlover.

Althoughheconcedesthatitmaybepossibletocreatehuman-likerobotsthat

‘appear’tobeinlovewithyou,hecountersthatsuchaloverwouldneverbeas

satisfyingtoyouasahumanlover.FollowingEvans,hearguesthatoneofthe

mainreasonsforthisisthatnomatterhowgoodtheillusionofloveis,there

wouldalwaysbesomereasontosuspectordoubtwhethertherobotreallyloves

you,givenitsorigins.27

25DylanEvans,‘WantingtheImpossible:TheDilemmaattheHeartofIntimateHuman-RobotRelationships’inYorickWilks(ed)CloseEngagementswithArtificialCompanions:KeySocial,Psychological,EthicalandDesignIssues(Philadelphia,PA:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany,2010).26Evans,n25,p74-7527MichaelHauskeller,‘AutomaticSweetheartsforTranshumanists’inJohnDanaherandNeilMcArthur(eds)RobotSex:SocialandEthicalImplications(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2017),p213.

Inamoreextensiveanalysisoftheconceptoflove,SvenNyholmandLily

Frankalsoexpressdoubtsaboutthepossibilityofbeinginalovingrelationship

witharobot.28Exploringdifferentconceptionsofromanticlove(including,the

claimthattobeinloveistobea‘goodmatch’withyourpartner,ortobe

attractedtothe‘distinctiveparticularity’ofyourpartner)theyarguethatwhileit

isnotimpossibletocreatearobotthatmeetstheconditionsneededforaloving

relationship,itwouldbeexceptionallydifficulttodoso,requiringtechnologyfar

inadvanceofwhatiscurrentlyavailable.Inmakingtheircase,theyusethe‘hired

actor’analogytoexpressthebasicproblemwithcreatingaroboticlover:it

seemslikethebestwecanreallydowitharoboticloveristocreateanentity

that‘playsthepart’ofbeinginlovewithyou,butneverquitegraduatesfrom

actingtogenuinelove.29

Thesecriticismsareintuitiveandattractive,buttheyhavesome

problems.Toseewhattheyareitisimportanttodistinguishbetweentwofears

articulatedbythecritics.Thefirst–whichwemightcallthe‘nodepth’fear–is

thatrobotloversareallsurfaceandnodepth.Theyact‘asif’theyloveyoubut

thereisnothingmoretoitthanperformance:theydon’treallyfeelor

consciouslyexperiencetherelevantemotionsthatweassociatewithbeingin

love.Thesecond–whichwemightcallthe‘programming’fear–isthatrobot

loverscannotfreelyandautonomouslychoosetoloveyou.Theywillalwaysbe

28SvenNyholmandLilyEvaFrank,‘FromSexRobotstoLoveRobots:IsMutualLovewithaRobotPossible?’inJohnDanaherandNeilMcArthur(eds)RobotSex:SocialandEthicalImplications(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2017).29NyholmandFrank,n28,pp223-224.

programmedtoloveyou.Thesetwofearsarerelatedtooneanother–most

allegedrobotloversprobablylackdepthandfreechoice–buttheyarenotthe

samething.Arobotmightbeprogrammedtoloveyouevenifithastheright

kindofexperientialdepthandviceversa.

Arethesetwocriticismsofrobotloversvalid?Let’sconsiderthe‘no

depth’problemfirst.Theeasyrebuttaltothisistosaythatevenifrobots

currentlylacktherequisiteexperientialdepthitispossible,someday,thatthey

willhaveit.Whenthatdayarrives,wecanhaverobotlovers.Themajorproblem

withthisrebuttal,however,isthatitkicksthecandowntheroadandfailsto

grapplewiththephilosophicalissueattheheartofthe‘nodepth’argument,

namely:doesexperientialdepthactuallymatterwhenitcomestodetermining

whetherornotaparticularrelationshipcountsasalovingone?Idon’tthinkit

does.Ifarobotappears,onthesurface,tobeinlovewithyouthenthat’sallit

takesforyoutobeinalovingrelationshipwiththatrobot.

Thismightsoundalittlecrazy,butIdefendthispositiononthegrounds

thatwemust,asapracticalmatter,bebehaviouristswhenitcomesto

understandingtheethicalstatusofourrelationshipswithotherbeings.30In

otherwords,wehavetoapplythemethodologicalbehaviourismofpsychologists

andcomputerscientists(e.g.thebehaviourismattheheartoftheTuringTestfor

machineintelligence)toourethicalrelationshipswithotherbeings.Thecentral

tenetofthis‘ethicalbehaviourism’isthatwhenyoutrytodeterminethemoral

30JohnDanaher,‘ThePhilosophicalCaseforRobotFriendship’(2019)TheJournalofPosthumanStudies2(2)

qualityofyourrelationships(includingyourdutiesandresponsibilities)with

otherbeingsyoucannotuseunobservable,innermentalstatestomakeyour

assessment.Youhavetorelyonexternallyobservablebehaviouraland

functionalpatterns.Youmay,ofcourse,hypothesisetheexistenceofinner

mentalstatestoexplainthoseobservablepatterns.Butanyinferenceyoumake

astothepresenceofthosestatesmustultimatelybegroundedinorguidedbyan

externallyobservablepattern.Theproblemwithmanyofthephilosophical

accountsofwhatittakestobeinalovingrelationshipisthattheyfocus,

implicitlyorexplicitly,onunobservableandinherentlyprivatementalstates

(e.g.feelingsofcommitment/attachment,sincereexpressionsofemotionsand

so).Asaresult,itiseffectivelyimpossibletohaveanyconfidenceintheexistence

oflovingrelationshipsunlessyouacceptthatobservablebehaviouraland

functionalpatternscanprovideepistemicwarrantforourjudgmentsaboutthe

presenceoftherelevantprivatementalstates.Inotherwords,ethical

behaviourismisalready,ofnecessity,theapproachwetaketounderstandingthe

ethicalstatusofourrelationshipswithourfellowhumanbeings.Thismeansthe

‘nodepth’argumentdoesn’twork.Sinceweareunabletoplumbthedepthsof

ourhumanlovers,wecannotapplyadifferentstandardtoroboticlovers.

Thispointhastobefinessedinordertoavoidsomepotentiallyabsurd

interpretations.Forstarters,itisimportanttorealisethatinordertoprovidethe

basisforalovingrelationship,theperformanceand‘illusion’fromarobotwill

needtobeequivalenttotheperformanceandillusionwegetfromahuman

lover.It’sunlikelythatanycurrentlyexistingrobotorAIachievessuch

performativeequivalency.Sothisremains,tosomeextent,afuturepossibility,

notapresentreality.

Similarly,therearesomecounterargumentstoethicalbehaviourismthat

areworthconsidering,ifonlytodeepentheunderstandingofwhatethical

behaviourismentails.Forexample,somepeoplemightarguethatwedorelyon

somethingotherthanbehaviourtodeterminethemoralqualityofour

relationshipswithothers.Perhapsitisbecauseweknowthatourloversare

madeoftherightstuff(biological/organicmaterial)thatweareconfidentthey

canloveus?Orperhapsitisbecauseweknowtheyhavetherightkindof

developmental/evolutionaryhistory?Ifso,thensomeonemightarguethat

robotsandAIwouldstillnotcountas‘proper’loverseveniftheywere

performativelyequivalenttohumanlovers.

Butitishardtoseewhythepresenceorabsenceoftheseotherfactors

shouldhaveshouldhavethateffect.Whatistherationalconnectionbetween

beingmadeoftherightstuff(orhavingtherighthistory)andthecapacityto

formalovingrelationshipwithanother?Supposeyourspousebehavesinaway

thatisentirelyconsistentwiththehypothesisthattheyloveyou.Butthen

suppose,oneday,youlearnthattheyare,infact,analienfromanotherplanet

anddon’tsharethesamebiologicalconstitution.Theycontinuetobehaveasthey

alwaysdid.Shouldyoudoubtwhetheryouareinatrulylovingrelationshipwith

them?It’shardtoseewhy.Therevelationoftheiralienorigins,inandofitself,

shouldnotunderminetheclaimthattheyareinalovingrelationship.The

consistentbehaviouralevidenceofloveshouldtrumptheotherconsiderations.

Thesameshouldholdforaroboticorartificiallover.

Somepeoplemightcomebackandarguethattherearecaseswhereour

faithintheexistenceofalovingrelationshipwouldbeshakenbylearning

somethingabouttheoriginsorhistoryofourhumanlovers.Suppose,for

example,youlearnthatyourhumanloverwas,indeed,ahiredactor,orthatthey

havebeenhavinganaffairforyearswithoutyourawareness.Surelythatwould

undermineyourconfidencethattheyareinalovingrelationshipwithyou?And

surelythatismoreakintowhatitwouldbeliketohavearobotlover?Butthese

counterexamplesdonotwork.Forstarters,itisnotclearthateitherofthese

revelationsshouldshakeourfaithintheexistenceofalovingrelationship.It

seemsplausibletosuggestthatahiredactorcouldgrowtolovethepersonwith

whomtheyhaveaninitiallyfakerelationship,anditalsoseemsplausibleto

suggestthatlovecansurviveinfidelity.Ifthepersonstillbehavesandappearsto

loveyouthenperhapstheydo,despitetheserevelations.Butevenifthat’sa

stretchforsomepeople,Iwouldsuggestthatwhatreallyshakestheirfaithinthe

existenceofalovingrelationshipinbothofthesecasesisthefactthattheywill

acquire(orhavereasontosuspecttheexistenceof)somenewbehavioural

evidencethatcontradictstheoldbehaviouralevidencethatconvincedthemthey

wereinalovingrelationship.Forexample,theymayhavelearned(orstartto

suspect)thattheactorsaysbadthingsaboutthemwhentheyare‘off’thejobor

thattheirpartnerhasbeenplanningtoleavethemforthepersonwiththeyare

havinganaffair.Thisnewbehaviouralevidencemightcompletelyundermine

theirbeliefinalovingrelationshiporatleastpromptthemtoseekoutfurther

behaviouralevidencetoconfirmwhethertheirpartnerstilllovesthem.Either

way,itisbehaviouralevidencethatwilldothedamage(orrepair).Inanyevent,

neitheroftheseexamplesisagoodanalogywiththeroboticlovercase,where

presumablytheroboticnatureandoriginsoftheloverwillbeknownfromday

one.

Whataboutthe‘programming’fear?Evansisrightthatwewant(or,at

least,shouldwant)ourloverstofreelychooseus.Ifarobotisprogrammedor

conditionedtoloveusthenitseemslikethereissomethingsuspiciousorinferior

aboutthekindof‘love’theycangive.Butweshouldn’toverstatethisfeareither.

Itisconceivablethatwecouldcreateroboticloversthatbehave‘asif’theyfreely

chooseus(and,remember,behaving‘asif’theychooseusisenough,following

ethicalbehaviourism).Theroboticlovermightactinficklewayortestitshuman

companion’struecommitment,muchlikeahumanlover.Thiscouldevenbean

attractivequalityinaroboticlover,becauseitmakesitmorelikethehuman-to-

humancase.Thedesireforthisisn’tasbizarreorunfathomableasEvansmakes

out.

Butbeyondthat,thereisalsoreasontodoubtwhetherthepresenceor

absenceof‘programming’shouldundermineourbeliefintheexistenceofa

lovingrelationship.Humansarearguably‘programmed’toloveoneanother.A

combinationofinnatebiologicaldrivesandculturaleducationmakeshumans

primedtofindoneanothersexuallyattractiveandformdeepandlastingbonds

withoneanother.Indeed,peopleoftentalkaboutloveasbeingsomethingother

thanafreeandautonomouschoice.We‘fall’intolove;wedon’tchooseit.We

findourselvesattractedtoothersdespiteourbetterjudgment.Theheartwants

whatitwants,andsoon.Furthermore,insomecultures,arrangedmarriagesand

relationshipsarecommonandwhiletheyseemunusual,maybeevencruel,from

someperspectives,thepartnersinsuchrelationshipsoftengrowtoloveone

anotherandreporthighlevelsofrelationship-satisfaction,sometimeshigherand

oftennoworsethanthesatisfactionofthosein‘autonomous’marriages.31Soitis

notthatunusualtobelievethatlovecanblossomfromsomepre-programming

andpre-arrangingofunions.

Criticsmightdisputetheseexamplesandarguethatthekindof

programminginvolvedinhumanrelationshipsisverydifferentfromthekind

thatwillariseinhuman-robotrelationships.Humansareonlyloosely

programmedtoseekattachment.Theyarenotbrainwashedtoloveaparticular

person.Also,eveninthecaseofarrangedmarriage(wherethereisgreater

restrictionanddirectionofchoice)thepartnersarenotcoercedintothe

relationshiponanongoingbasis.Theycanexercisetheirautonomyafterthe

unionhasformedandescapetherelationshipiftheydesire.

Butitisnotclearthatthedisanalogiesareallthatstrong.Itistruethat,

classically,robotsandAIswereprogrammedfromthetop-downbyparticular

humanprogrammerstofollowhighlyspecifiedinstructions,butthisisnolonger

thenorm.RobotsandAIsarenowprogrammedfromthebottomup,tofollow

31RobertEpstein,MayuriPanditandMansiThakar,‘HowLoveEmergesinArrangedMarriages:TwoCross-culturalStudies’(2013)JournalofComparativeFamilyStudies,44(3):341-360;andPCRegan,SLakhanpal,andCAnguiano,‘RelationshipoutcomesinIndian-Americanlove-basedandarrangedmarriages’(2012)PsychologicalReport110(3):915-24.

learningrules,andtoadapttonewchallengesandcircumstances.Theflexibility

ofthisadaptivelearningisstillratherlimited–weareyettocreateageneralised

formofartificialintelligence–butasthisapproachproliferatesandgrowsthe

allegeddisanalogiesbetweentheprogrammingofhumanloversandrobotlovers

willnarrow.Itwillnolongerbeabsurdtoclaimthatrobotloverscommittous

onthebasisofafreeandongoingchoice,nortoimaginethattheymightfallout

oflovewithusthroughcontinuedlearning.

Noneofthistosaythatpreferringarobotloveroverahumanloverisa

goodthingorthattherearenoethicalproblemswithcreatingrobotlovers.

Thereare.Worriesabouttheobjectificationanddominationofrobotpartners,

aswellasthesocialconsequencesthatthismighthave,havebeenvoicedby

severalcritics.Ihavediscussedtheseworriesatlengthinpreviouswork.32

Similarly,NyholmandFrankarguethatthecreatorsofroboticloversandsexual

partnersmaybeunderanobligationnottomisleadusersastothecapacitiesof

therobotsinquestiontoformlovingrelationships.33Theyworrythat

manufacturersmightbetemptedtoexploittheemotionalvulnerabilityofsome

consumersinordertomaketheirproductsmoreattractive.Whilethisisa

problemwithallconsumerproducts(tosomeextent),itseemslikeaparticularly

acuteproblemforroboticlovers,giventhecentralityandimportanceofsexand

32JohnDanaher,‘RoboticRapeandRoboticChildSexualAbuse:ShouldtheybeCriminalised?’(2017)CriminalLawandPhilosophy11(1):71-95;JohnDanaher‘TheSymbolicConsequencesArgumentintheSexRobotDebate’inDanaherandMcArthur(eds)RobotSex:SocialandEthicalImplications(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2017);andJohnDanaher,‘RegulatingChildSexRobots:RestrictionorExperimentation?’(2019)MedicalLawReview,forthcoming.33SvenNyholmandLilyEvaFrank‘ItLovesMe,ItLovesMeNot:IsitMorallyProblematictoDesignSexRobotsthatAppearto“Love”TheirOwners?”(2019)Techné,forthcoming

loveinhumanlife.Arelativelystrictsetofrulesmayberequiredtoguard

againstabuse.But,ofcourse,whatisandisnotpermittedbythissetofrules

depends,crucially,onwhatwethinkittakestoformalegitimateloving

relationship.ThisiswhyIhavefocusedonthephilosophicalnatureofloveinthe

precedingdiscussion.IfIamcorrectinmyanalysis,itwillsomedaypossibleto

formalovingrelationshipwitharobotiftherobotcanconvincinglyand

consistentlyperformthepartofbeingalover,andhenceanyrestrictions

imposedtopreventexploitationwillneedtotakethatintoconsideration.

Conclusion

Towrapup,AIandroboticsarebeing,andwillcontinuetobe,usedto

augmentandcomplementhumansexuality.Inthischapter,Ihaveaddressed

threeissuesthatmightariseasaresultandmadethreemainarguments.First,I

havearguedthatweshouldbecautiousaboutrecognisinganewformofsexual

identitythatappliestothosewhoprimarilyexpressandenacttheirsexualities

throughthesetechnologies.Doingsoisnotmetaphysicallymandatedandmay

contributetosocialstigmatisation.Second,IhavearguedthatAIcanbeusedto

assisthumansexualandintimaterelationships.Suchassistanceposesanumber

ofrisks–particularlytoprivacy–buttheserisksshouldnotbeoverstatedand

shouldnotpreventthebeneficialuseofAIsexassistants.Finally,Iarguedthat,

contrarytoanumberofcritics,itispossibletoformalovingrelationshipwitha

robotorAI.It’sabravenewworldintowhichwearestepping.Let’smakeita

sexuallyenrichingone.

Bibliography

JohnDanaherandNeilMcArthur(eds)RobotSex:SocialandEthicalImplications

(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2017)

JohnDanaher,SvenNyholmandBrianEarp‘TheQuantifiedRelationship’(2018)

AmericanJournalofBioethics18(2):1-19

KateDevlinTurnedOn:Science,SexandRobots(London:Bloomsbury,2018).

MichaelHauskeller,SexandthePosthumanCondition(London:Palgrave

MacMillan,2014)

DavidLevy,LoveandSexwithRobots:TheEvolutionofHuman-Robot

Relationships(NewYork:HarperCollins,2007)

KarenLevy,‘Intimatesurveillance’(2014)IdahoLawReview51:679–93

HallieLieberman,Buzz:TheStimulatingHistoryoftheSexToy(NewYork:

PegasusBooks,2017)

DeborahLupton,‘Quantifiedsex:Acriticalanalysisofsexualandreproductive

self-trackingusingapps’,(2015)Culture,HealthandSexuality17(4):440–53

NeilMcArthurandMarkieTwist,‘Theriseofdigisexuality:therapeutic

challengesandpossibilities’(2017)SexandRelationshipTherapy32(3-4):334-

344

SvenNyholmandLilyEvaFrank,‘FromSexRobotstoLoveRobots:IsMutual

LovewithaRobotPossible?’inJohnDanaherandNeilMcArthur(eds)RobotSex:

SocialandEthicalImplications(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2017)