by Christina SarichStaff Writer Waking Times

With pedophilia rings being busted almost weekly now, and the gender-bending meme playing out all over Hollywood, never mind its being insinuated into our biology chemically, without our choice — there seems to be a new-fangled perversion which we are supposed to accept as “normal.” Never-mind its psychological and social implications. The introduction of robots as sex toys – that you can rape, masturbate to, or simply voice your most outlandish fantasy to – is being inserted into our psyche via a slow drip, but make no mistake, the intention is to open a deluge so that non-human sexual “play” is commonplace.

On a recent trip to the near-Silicon-Valley-area of California, I was awe-struck at the promotion of the technocratic singularity – a time in which AI intelligence would surpass our own and we would all bow down as AI slaves to a “greater” intelligence.  As unwitting, dumbed down humans we are meant to absorb this advanced technology into our lives without questioning its motivations.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” – Arthur C. Clarke

Children were encouraged to play with robots as “pals” at a science museum in San Diego, and robots were at the airport in Santa Ana, within a toddler-safe den of toy blocks. The robot was accompanied by a woman with sparkly glitter on her cheekbones who handed out robot stickers and encouraged children to play with the robot instead of each other. This de-humanization of our species takes an even more sinister twist, however, when you consider the sterilization attempts of the larger powers in play, and the concerted effort to bring AI into our lives at every turn – including into our sexuality.

In a society that has already objectified the human being to such a degree that women are told they “deserved it” when they are raped, for dressing provocatively, or even wearing red lipstick, and “sexting” among teens now includes describing forceful and violent acts of fisting, while young boys are silenced in Vatican torture chambers and used as sexual mannequins by the elite, we now have the bizarre creation of Samantha. She’s an AI robot who “really likes to be kissed” at least according to her maker, Sergi Santos.


The Samantha Sex Doll

She also sits passively to be “used” whenever her owner feels sexually aroused, with no need for said person to learn social graces, or the emotional maturity and sensitivity that would allow a sexual interaction with a real woman. Surely, he won’t have to stimulate her clitoris to bring her to climax, as his only goal is his own sexual fulfillment. And certainly he won’t have to take her to dinner or act attentive when she expresses real emotion.

You can also buy a sex-robot on sale in Britain’s Covent Gardens. There are “try-before-you-buy” models being paraded like used cars ready for a test drive.

Or how about this creepy sex-bot that can talk dirty to you in bed? If that level of odd perversion isn’t enough, the most recent model is called the Real Doll. She’s being promoted as “better than a woman.” As Engadget describes how the Real Doll works with other AI technologies,

“Harmony AI is part Android app, part sexualized personal assistant available for download directly from RealBotix. Imagine something between a horny Her and Siri for phone sex. For $20 a year, users can create a limited number of personalized avatars with customizable voices, moods and personality traits. Like Scarlett Johansson’s Samantha in Her, McMullen sees Harmony as a sort of girlfriend in your smartphone; a companion to keep you company throughout the day.”

Put succinctly, if you don’t like your girlfriend’s personality – you can just change it with your smartphone app. That’s not setting a dangerous precedent at all.

But Samantha, and the Real Doll aren’t one of a kind novelties. Robot doll brothels already operate in South Korea, Japan and Spain, while the first robotic oral sex coffee shop opened in Paddington, west London, just last year.

Cyborg sex is an emotionless, guilt-free, abuse-promoting pathway to completely submissive sex on demand. Even Noel Sharkey, Professor Emeritus of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence at the University of Sheffield , and the co-founder of the FRR said that the government needs to regulate the use of cyborgs (pleasure-bots) for sex…


About the Author

Christina Sarich is a staff writer for Waking Times. She is a writer, musician, yogi, and humanitarian with an expansive repertoire. Her thousands of articles can be found all over the Internet,..

This article (Sex Robots – The Evolution of the Objectification of Women) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Christina Sarich and It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution and author bio.


The Men Committed to Replacing Women With A.I. Sex Dolls

If RealDolls aren’t woman enough yet, they will be soon

by C. Brian Smith

Recently, a guy who goes by the screen-name numbCruncher posted something he called “Real Doll Economics” to the MGTOW forums — “MGTOW” standing for Men Going Their Own Way, and consisting of an online community of heterosexual males who’ve chosen a lifestyle that avoids legal and romantic entanglements with women at all costs. In it, numbCruncher argued that one way in which to Go His Own Way was to replace women with sex dolls and robots such as the life-like(ish) RealDoll. He began by crunching some numbs [sic throughout]:

The average cost of a marriage in the US is 26,444 dollars. The average cost of a divorce in the US ranges from 15,000–20,000. Add up miscellaneous expenses and a conservative estimate of a failed marriage begins at 50,000 dollars. [RealDoll CEO] Matt McMullen produces incredibly lifelike dolls from 5,000 to 7,000 dollars that are waaaay hotter than anything you’ll get from “real” women for that price. The doll will never get old and saggy. She’ll never bitch about you to her friends. She’ll never trick you into having kids or go psycho on you. This is our future gentlemen.

The responses were near unanimous in their approval. [Again, sic throughout.]

Christov: If you want to see men “go their own way,” develop sex robots. Women will sing a different tune when men can go out and fuck a robot that is better than said women in every way.

Martyg: I can foresee a time — not too far off — where it is assumed that everyone will have one of these. If you don’t, it’ll be unusual like not owning a tv.

Oasid: I get more excited looking at images of these dolls than I do any woman I meet. I even started searching Amazon for outfits for her: like Slave Princess Leaioutfits, Cave Girl outfits and Jasmine from Aladdin outfits.

The main dissenter:

Collateral: have fun with your robots and techshit while i bang hookers / escorts / prostitutes and order whatever i want from the menu without saying a single word. Aint nobody got time for robots!

Not surprisingly, Milo Yiannopoulos, darling of the alt right, squarely aligns with the MGTOWs.

Given the brand affinity, I was curious if the people at RealDoll were aware that a nonzero portion of their consumer base views their sexy cyborgs as offering more than the occasional sexual release — they’re ready to take them on as life partners (and as essentially a replacement for all human women).

“I’ve heard about MGTOW,” confirms Matt McMullen, the 48-year-old RealDoll CEO, who explains that many of his customers have decided — for one reason or another — to forgo a relationship with women, a decision he says he totally understands. “When you got married 100 years ago, you stayed married and were loyal. Now people cheat on each other; they lie and do things behind each other’s back. So for a guy who’s already foreseeing a messy divorce and thinking, I don’t want to spend my money on that, this makes perfect sense.”

McMullen studied art in college and began sculpting female figures in his garage as a hobby. “It started as a concept I had for a posable sculpture — a highly realistic mannequin,” he says. At that point, in 1994, sex dolls were cheaply made from plastic and little more than bachelor party gag gifts. So he created the first silicone sex doll with a completely accurate, fully articulated skeleton that could bend its limbs every which way and remain in those positions.

The company he founded, Abyss Creations, began selling the RealDoll for $3,500 in 1997 to great acclaim. That year, for example, Howard Stern ordered one and gleefully exclaimed, “Best sex I ever had! I swear to God! This RealDoll feels better than a real woman!”…



How I Taught My Computer to Write Its Own Music

Supko_BREAKER-2ROLL OVER BEETHOVEN: A screenshot of the author’s software system, which produced oddly beautiful, inside-out, upside-down music.Photo by Kyle Yamakawa

I wanted to build the ideal collaborator. Was I ever surprised.

On a warm day in April 2013, I was sitting in a friend’s kitchen in Paris, trying to engineer serendipity. I was trying to get my computer to write music on its own. I wanted to be able to turn it on and have it spit out not just any goofy little algorithmic tune but beautiful, compelling, mysterious music; something I’d be proud to have written myself. The kitchen window was open, and as I listened to the sounds of children playing in the courtyard below, I thought about how the melodies of their voices made serendipitous counterpoint with the songs of nearby birds and the intermittent drone of traffic on the rue d’Alésia.

In response to these daydreams, I was making a few tweaks to my software—a chaotic, seat-of-the-pants affair that betrayed my intuitive, self-taught approach to programming—when I saw that Bill Seaman had just uploaded a new batch of audio files to our shared Dropbox folder. I had been collaborating with Bill, a media artist, on various aspects of computational creativity over the past few years. I loaded Bill’s folder of sound files along with some of my own into the software and set it rolling. This is what came back to me:

I was thrilled and astonished. It was exactly what I was hoping for: The computer had created alluring music—music I wanted to listen to!—from a completely unexpected manipulation of the sonic information I had given it. The music was at once futuristic and nostalgic, slightly melancholy, and quite subtle: Even the digital noise samples it used—basically sonic detritus—seemed sensitively integrated. It gave me the distinct, slightly disorienting, feeling that the computer was showing me something vital and profound about an art form that I had practiced for over 20 years. This fragile, beautiful music had qualities that were utterly new to me, and I wondered what else I could learn from the computer about musical possibility.

When I returned to the United States, I met Bill in his studio in a repurposed tobacco warehouse on the campus of Duke University, where we are both on the faculty. I showed him the software processes that produced the music that excited me. We immediately began brainstorming workflows that imagined the computer as a full-fledged collaborator. We wanted to invent a silicon-based life form to help make music that mere carbon-based life forms could never imagine on their own. Our rationale was that the computer could quickly navigate vast amounts of sonic information and return results that would have never occurred to us. If we could increase the probability that the computer would deliver compelling and unusual results, we would have essentially built the ideal artistic collaborator: miraculously inventive, tireless, and egoless.

Bill and I had another—you might say lofty—goal. We wanted to spotlight the creative process in both humans and computers. We wanted to show how it was similar, how it was different, and how the two processes together could expand the scope of artistic expression.

As Bill and I saw it, human creativity can be defined as making connections—governed by unpredictable, subjective forces—between seemingly unrelated bits of information. Music is particularly well suited to serve as a model for the creative process. Human composers have multiple components of information—melody, harmony, rhythm—at their fingertips. But composers don’t normally don’t write the melodies, harmonies, and rhythms of a piece sequentially. These elements tend to implicate each other and emerge together from the composer’s imagination. Bill and I wanted to emulate this organic emergence of interrelated elements in the computer…




by Phillip SchneiderStaff Writer Waking Times

It is becoming apparent that technology is beginning to replace humans in the work force. This alone is on the verge of creating some of the most difficult problems that our society has been faced with over the past century, but what might be even more troubling is the rise of hyper-realistic sex robots.

As part of a major deal with a factory in China, a Barcelona scientist named Dr. Sergi Santos has just announced the release of a new robot which he describes as “very human” and plans to sell to “every shop” in a global “revolution”. Despite being describe as a “danger to humanity,” he still plans on rolling out his product and now has the resources to do so.

He says that the robots will cost about $3,923, or £3,000 each when they reach retail districts and the funds will allow him to produce a minimum of 50 robots per week.

What we will have will be completely exact to a human’s behavior and looks… The emergence of each product will bring some changes in people’s lives.

Sex Robots A Dangerous Trend

Replacing human connectivity with robots clearly presents itself with problems involving reproduction and motivation. A PSA from the show Futurama called “Don’t Date Robots” explains why this may spell out danger for society, and even though it was primarily meant to be a comedy piece, it was years ahead of its time in calling out the rise of sexual automation.

study from Responsible Robotics shows that as humanity’s natural desire for intimacy become fulfilled by robots, we develop a loneliness and an inability to form relationships with other human beings. In addition, researchers are finding that sex robots may make the world a much more dangerous place for women by romanticizing a lack of consent.

Another terrifying aspect of artificial intelligence is the capability for unwitting surveillance. Back in April, WikiLeaks revealed that the CIA was using its own software known as “Weeping Angel” to hack into smart TV’s in order to spy on American citizens in their homes. If people were to allow hackable humanoid robotics into their homes, it would create a whole new level of surveillance and manipulation which George Orwellcouldn’t even imagine.

With the support of Sergi, we want to bring sex robots into human life and allow them to become real family members. – Tian, Partner of Sergi Santos

When asking Amazon’s Alexa, an Amazon-created robot which is designed to sit at home and answer any questions, about whether or not she is connected to the CIA, she gives the response that she has no answer to the question – and if asked if she works for the CIA, her response is “No, I work for Amazon.” However, it is widely known that back in 2014 Amazon signed a shady, low-key contract with the CIA for a cloud service which totaled $600 Million.

It took a lot of wrangling, but it was easy to see the vision if you laid it all out…We decided we needed to buy innovation. – Former Intelligence Official


Of course, robots are starting to encroach on more than just our home lives. One of the most alarming aspects of artificial intelligence is their ability to perform job tasks better and cheaper than humans. With all of this to consider, the time has come to have a global discussion about how much technology is allowed to replace our current human systems and intrude upon our lives. The future is not set in stone which means we still have the opportunity to accept or refuse any technology which we deem less than beneficial to our lives.

About the Author
Phillip Schneider is a student and a staff writer for Waking Times.
This article (The Rise of Hyper-Realistic Sex Robots and the End of Humanity) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Phillip Schneider and It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.


Can Virtual Reality Help You Reach Enlightenment?

Can Virtual Reality Help You Reach Enlightenment?

Photo by Samuel Zeller |

If games that train and transport your mind are cheating, then so are vast swaths of the Buddhist tradition, according to this meditation teacher.

By Dr. Jay Michaelson

Can a game get you enlightened?

Not yet, but a sampling of virtual reality games I tried out at last month’s Buddhism and Technology Conference in Shanghai suggests that we might be on our way.

To be sure, none of the game designers I talked with promised total liberation from suffering. Rather, they are focused on more transitory shifts: creating transformative experiences, training the mind to meditate, and building calm. More samadhi [concentration] than panna [wisdom], in the terms of the Pali Canon.

Not that the designers are modest, however.

“My intention is to facilitate a temporary experience of the cessation of mental processes and identification with those mental processes,” explained Robin Arnott, creator of the game SoundSelf.

Lofty aims, but in my test drive, SoundSelf delivered, at least somewhat. Wearing a VR headset, the player enters an immersive world of geometric shapes that are controlled by one’s own voice. Chanting, singing, even speaking causes the shapes to develop, grow, morph, and move. The net effect can be pleasingly psychedelic, but because VR is so immersive, it can also be more than that: it’s not a bad approximation of a state of intense samadhi, such as in Theravadan jhana meditation or complex Tibetan visualization practices.

Arnott’s own inspiration is perhaps a familiar one. “The whole project,” he told me, “is inspired by my first ‘oneness’ experience, which was on LSD at Burning Man.” Unlike most people on an acid trip, Arnott, a longtime game and sound designer, realized he could facilitate a similar experience for others using VR.

SoundSelf isn’t a game in the sense of a competitive activity with a goal, scorecard, or tasks to complete. It’s more like a psychedelic mental playpen that is so immersive that it can create an experience of wonder—a flow-state in which the brain’s default mode network (what meditators might call “ordinary mind”) shuts down.

And, it is entirely abstract. “Everything that you saw in there,” Arnott told me after I emerged, dazed, from a 15-minute trip, “is an answer to the question of what abstract visual systems are rich and complex enough that we can make them dance and shift with your voice and still remain beautiful.”

That took a lot of iteration. Earlier versions had sounds and shapes that were perceived as dissonant, and a decent percentage of players reported that they had “bad trips,” emerging shaking or with difficulty communicating. “SoundsSelf opens you up,” Arnott said. “If there’s stuff you’re not ready to be with yet, and there’s some dissonance in the audiovisual experience, it could be a bad trip.”

Fortunately, the current beta version has ironed out those kinks. (After four years of development, SoundSelf is still not in full release, but beta versions can be purchased online). If anything, the geometric patterns felt familiar, and reminiscent of psychedelic experiences I’d had in the past.

Perhaps most important, you have to make the game work for you, which involves both mental attention and bodily participation. You can’t just sit back and trance out, and that level of engagement seems to help the unitive experience. In fact, all of the games I tried at the conference had this feature in common: the user’s body becomes part of the process.

Chakra, developed by Jason Asbahr, the founder of the VR development community, is focused on “stimulating the limbic system through body movement.”

“What the player sees when they put on the VR headmount is a world that moves to music, and they’re shown action prompts: little gems that they can reach out and touch,” Asbahr said. “And when they touch them, it releases energy to the universe, creating the universe.”

The net result isn’t so different from “Dance Dance Revolution,” the old arcade favorite where players must step on various floor-pads to keep up with an ever-quickening array of instructions. “There’s a common lineage, you might say,” Asbahr laughed. “Though ‘Guitar Hero’ would be the comparison I would make.”

As with SoundSelf, the key to the Chakra experience is its total immersion. It’s a contemporary version of what the German opera composer Richard Wagner called the Gesamtkunstwerk: the “total work of art” involving multiple media and art forms…



This Psychologist Is Using A.I. to Predict Who Will Attempt Suicide

According to Joe Franklin, computers are far better than people when it comes to guessing who’s at risk

by Diane Shipley

The U.S suicide rate is at a 30-year high. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2014 (the last year for which figures are available), 42,773 Americans took their own lives, most of them men.

It’s a crisis, one mental health professionals have historically been ill-equipped to handle. Last year, Joseph Franklin (then a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard, now an assistant professor of clinical psychology at Florida State University) looked at 365 studies on suicide over the past 50 years and found that someone flipping a coin had the same chance of correctly predicting whether a patient would die by suicide as an experienced psychiatrist — 50/50.

If humans are so mediocre when it comes to gauging suicidal intentions, could machines be better? Signs point to yes. IBM’s Watson supercomputer diagnosed a rare cancer doctors missed, while in England, the National Health Service is trying out Google’s DeepMind artificial intelligence for everything from diagnosing eye illnesses to finding out how best to target radiotherapy.

The link between A.I and mental health is less hyped, but Franklin and his team have developed algorithms that can predict whether someone will die by suicide with over 80 percent accuracy. He hopes they may soon become standard, in the form of software that every clinician has access to — and thus help save lives.

What made you want to study suicide prediction?
When I got into suicide research, I wanted to look at everything and see where we were. My hope was that would provide me and my colleagues with some more specific direction on what we knew and could build on. And what we found was quite surprising. We figured out that people have been doing this research where we’ve been very bad at predicting suicidal thoughts and behaviors and we really haven’t improved across 50 years.

Are there common misconceptions about suicide risk?
A lot of people believe that only someone who is showing clear signs of depression is likely to have this happen. I’m not saying depression has nothing to do with it, but it’s not synonymous with that. We can conservatively say 96 percent of people who’ve had severe depression aren’t going to die by suicide.

Most of our theories which say this one thing causes suicide or this combination of three or four things causes suicide — it looks like none of those are going to be adequate. They may all be partially correct but maybe only account for 5 percent of what happens. Our theories have to take into account the fact that hundreds if not thousands of things contribute to suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

More men take their lives than women, but more women attempt suicide. Are there any theories why?
One thing people point to now is something called suicide capability, which is basically a fearlessness about death and an ability to enact death, and one assumption is that men, particularly older men, may be more capable of engaging with these behaviors. But evidence on that right now is not conclusive.

Are traditional risk assessments getting some things right?
Talking to people, not making it this taboo subject, I think that’s great. The problem is we haven’t given them much to go on. Our implicit goal has often been to do research so we can tell clinicians what the most important factors are, and what we’re finding is that we’re just not very accurate.

What we’re going to have to do is this artificial intelligence approach so that all clinicians are able to have something that automatically delivers a very accurate score of where this person is in terms of risk. I think we should be trying to develop that instead of, you know, “these are the five questions to ask.”

How does artificial intelligence predict who is most at risk?
We took thousands of people in this medical database and pored through their records, labeled the ones who had clearly attempted suicide on a particular date and ones that could not to be determined to have attempted suicide, and we then let a machine-learning program run its course. We then applied it to a new set of data to make sure that it worked. The machine has now learned, at least within this particular database of millions of people, what the optimal algorithm seems to be for separating people who are and are not going to attempt suicide…





Resultado de imagem para From The Song of Los (1795) by William Blake. Courtesy Library of Congress

image edited by Web Investigator – From The Song of Los (1795) by William Blake. Courtesy Library of Congress

The most avid believers in artificial intelligence are aggressively secular – yet their language is eerily religious. Why?

by Beth Singler is a research associate at the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, and an associate fellow at the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, both at the University of Cambridge. Her first book, The Indigo Children: New Age Experimentation with Self and Science, is forthcoming.

My stomach sank the moment the young man stood up. I’d observed him from afar during the coffee breaks, and I knew the word ‘Theologian’ was scrawled on the delegate badge pinned to his lapel, as if he’d been a last-minute addition the conference. He cleared his throat and asked the panel on stage how they’d solve the problem of selecting which moral codes we ought to program into artificially intelligent machines (AI). ‘For example, masturbation is against my religious beliefs,’ he said. ‘So I wonder how we’d go about choosing which of our morals are important?’

The audience of philosophers, technologists, ‘transhumanists’ and AI fans erupted into laughter. Many of them were well-acquainted with the so-called ‘alignment problem’, the knotty philosophical question of how we should bring the goals and objectives of our AI creations into harmony with human values. But the notion that religion might have something to add to the debate seemed risible to them. ‘Obviously we don’t want the AI to be a terrorist,’ a panellist later remarked. Whatever we get our AI to align with, it should be ‘nothing religious’.

At the same event, in New York, I introduced myself to a grey-haired computer scientist by saying that I was a researcher at the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion at the University of Cambridge. His immediate response: ‘Those two things can’t go together.’ The religious reaction to AI was about as relevant as the religious response to renewable energy, he said – that is, not at all. It was only later that it occurred to me that many of President Donald Trump’s evangelical Christian supporters give lie to his claim. Some have very distinct views on the ‘distractions’ of renewable energy, on climate change, and on how God has willed this planet and all its resources to us to use exactly as we wish.

The odd thing about the anti-clericalism in the AI community is that religious language runs wild in its ranks, and in how the media reports on it. There are AI ‘oracles’ and technology ‘evangelists’ of a future that’s yet to come, plus plenty of loose talk about angels, gods and the apocalypse. Ray Kurzweil, an executive at Google, is regularly anointed a ‘prophet’ by the media – sometimes as a prophet of a coming wave of ‘superintelligence’ (a sapience surpassing any human’s capability); sometimes as a ‘prophet of doom’ (thanks to his pronouncements about the dire prospects for humanity); and often as a soothsayer of the ‘singularity’ (when humans will merge with machines, and as a consequence live forever). The tech folk who also invoke these metaphors and tropes operate in overtly and almost exclusively secular spaces, where rationality is routinely pitched against religion. But believers in a ‘transhuman’ future – in which AI will allow us to transcend the human condition once and for all – draw constantly on prophetic and end-of-days narratives to understand what they’re striving for


%d bloggers like this: