And here we get a little edgier still, with a 3D illustration.
It’s a promotional illustration for a site called FuckedByRobots.com, which appears to consist of 3D art stemming from the story premise that the robots invade, take over, and go on the prowl looking for pretty women to have sex with. This particular illustration goes with the tag “Robots improve their fucking skills in the robo porn lab.”
I guess this is what we deserve for letting computers go on Jeopardy.
I like the way the site’s name is embedded into the art, itself.
However, considering that Watson carefully caculated his wagers to finish his two-day game with a final tally of $77,147 (apparently, 7 has an aesthetic appeal to him that 10 has to us), I’d love to see a scene where a robot’s idea of a “pretty girl” is more alien than a human’s.
You might be somewhat pleased by tomorrow’s entry in this series.
I just saw Woman and Robot VI; is that the one you speak of? I did like the domestic setting; dark dystopian futures get so old, after a while. Or will that be VII?
Woman and Robot VI is the one. I think so because the pretty girl appears (to my eyes, anyway) to be at least part robot herself — note the shiny metallic plate she has where here belly should be.
If my interpretation is correct, that suggests that (in the fictional world of which this illustration is a part, anyway) unsupervised domestic robots will get busy with each other. Talk about unexpected consequences of technology!
Ah. I was unsure if that red-plastic/metalic bit was part of her body, or part of the “cat’s” (?) body, reaching under to support her. But on second viewing, I see that they are both “cyborgs.”
Anyway, this post prompted me to ask the following question in my own journal, last night, which VI plays nicely into (thanks! ;-)):
“If robots evolve to a critical level of complexity — say, if they can heal themselves, reproduce themselves, and become self-aware — should they still be considered “robots” at that point? Or will they have become an actual (i.e. biological rather than “artificial”) life form?”