Interactive "Robot Goddess" Unveiled In East China

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Alright, here is another sex robot prototype out of China. Maybe there will be an Alexandra Daddario one next week.

It took the team three years to research and develop this new-generation interactive robot, which can speak, show micro-expressions, move its lips, and move its body, according to team director Chen Xiaoping. Compared to previous interactive robots, Jia Jia's eyeballs roll naturally and its speech is in sync with its lip movements, in addition to her human-like form, Chen said. Jia Jia can not cry or laugh and these are areas to be developed, Chen added. "We hope to develop the robot so it has deep learning abilities. We will add facial expression recognition and make it interact more deeply with people," said Chen. Chen said he hoped Jia Jia would become a wise "robot goddess."
 
they'll have them at fast food restaurants taking your order in the near future.
 
They really need to quiet the servo noises coming from these robots if they expect people to bang them.
 
mullet said:
Creepy!!
Click to expand...
You would think they would realize by now that you don't **HAVE** to replicate human appearance for an emotional interaction.

EVE from Wall-E was able to confer a lot of emotion just using eyes and robotic speech.

And even a sex-bot, as shown on Rick and Morty, this is realistic enough to get the job done!

q12Vrj2.gif
 
It seems Asia has a thing with trying to replicate realistic females in their robotics. I don't see this fascination in the West. Personally I'm all for functionality. Wasting efforts on expressions and lip sync etc... is a waste of time. And as others have said, creepy!
 
China has a REAL problem currently because of the 1 child limit, untold numbers of female babies were never born or aborted because of that policy. Far too many males there and not enough females in the current population of "breeding age". In Japan, the problem is the aging population and no one is wanting to have children to replace what is lost to old age. Japan's population is shrinking rather rapidly, which will accelerate a bit in the next 2 decades noticeably.
 
Kibagami said:
China has a REAL problem currently because of the 1 child limit, untold numbers of female babies were never born or aborted because of that policy. Far too many males there and not enough females in the current population of "breeding age". In Japan, the problem is the aging population and no one is wanting to have children to replace what is lost to old age. Japan's population is shrinking rather rapidly, which will accelerate a bit in the next 2 decades noticeably.
Click to expand...
Have you been to Japan? It is so overpopulated, its painful. People live in apartments the size of closets. Getting on the train, they have staff that will push with all their might to get as many as will fit packed inside. In China and India, overpopulation is responsible for massive pollution that accounts for the death of hundreds of thousands a year.

Yet you have people that say that if they try to reduce the overpopulation trend, and try to at least get back to the population size of 1950, that its the apocalypse and humans will go extinct... it boggles the mind!!!

4589629509_df21c14716.jpg


The world is suffering a global overpopulation crisis, and if we can't at least stop the population growth, if not outright return it to sane levels that the environment can sustain, it will be impossible to maintain current quality of life and equilibrium with our environment.
 
Ducman69 said:
Have you been to Japan? It is so overpopulated, its painful. People live in apartments the size of closets. Getting on the train, they have staff that will push with all their might to get as many as will fit packed inside. In China and India, overpopulation is responsible for massive pollution that accounts for the death of hundreds of thousands a year.

Yet you have people that say that if they try to reduce the overpopulation trend, and try to at least get back to the population size of 1950, that its the apocalypse and humans will go extinct... it boggles the mind!!!
Click to expand...

Japan is not overpopulated, their major cities (specifically Tokyo) are overpopulated. People flock to cities from the countryside and rural towns which leaves some small towns with very low populations, and in some cases no one but the elderly Eventually, they will all just be ghost towns.
 
Ducman69 said:
The world is suffering a global overpopulation crisis, and if we can't at least stop the population growth, if not outright return it to sane levels that the environment can sustain, it will be impossible to maintain current quality of life and equilibrium with our environment.
Click to expand...

Ummm, what koolaid have you been drinking?
 
variant said:
Japan is not over populated
Click to expand...
And herein lies the problem. Rational people would look at the below graph, and be frightened into action:
PopGraph.gif

Yet others say that even the most overpopulated places in the world are just fine, and if their birth rate falls below 2.0, its a catastrophe that must be remedied. *bangs head on table*

East-asians and Europeans are the model that everyone else should be following, but it does no good if they practice family planning if the rest of the world just makes up for it and then some, popping out kids like nobodies business and then having them flood the countries trying to stabilize their populations to improve quality of life.
 
A couple points on the overpopulation argument:
1) Linear graphs are pointless when charting population growth.
2) This type of population growth is only possible with the (frankly incredible) advances in efficiency of food production.
3) The worries about population decline have everything to do with economics, and little to do with environmental impact. Historically, countries have had many more workers than retirees. Countries like Japan and China are looking at a rapid transition to a situation where the percent of retirees is much higher and the percent of workers much lower. That is expected to be very disruptive.
 
Mohonri said:
Countries like Japan and China are looking at a rapid transition to a situation where the percent of retirees is much higher and the percent of workers much lower. That is expected to be very disruptive.
Click to expand...
That's a hurdle you jump once, and never have to jump again once you have stabilized.

Otherwise, the solution is to always have a perpetually increasing population size like we presently do, which is unsustainable.

And yes, we are producing more food, but at the sacrifice of habitat destruction and quality of life. If we had the population of 1950 in the US today, we could set aside massive nature reserves and hugely reduce our consumption and pollution and waste production while simultaneously enjoying a far higher quality of life.

Its like when a farmer dies and wants to split up his farm land between his children. Its fine if he has two kids, but if he has 10 kids, they each only get a tiny slice. And if each of them have 10 kids, they are fighting for scraps with waste everywhere.

And if anything, thanks to advances in automation, the need for human labor to advance civilization is drastically reduced, and would be advanced far faster with fewer children given greater investment per child. 500 new scientists is far more advantageous than figuring out the logistics of feeding, entertaining, housing, and cleaning up after 5,000 simpletons with 20 scientists among them.

This is basic stuff most kids figured out playing Sid Meiers Civilization, lol!
 
Okay this thread is littered with ignorance. Western culture (we will throw Japan in that mix) has a pathetic birth rate. In Europe not a single country has a birth rate over 1.8. This has nothing to do with food. This is a fact of a society where it takes two to make it in the culture that frowns on historic norms. No country or culture has ever survived with a low level birth rate. I believe 2.4 is the number needed to have a future.
For example I believe Great Britain is somewhere around 1.6. Strangely enough Muslim immigrants are over 7! At the rate of influx native Europeans will be a minority in 25 years. Great Britain was %98 native Anglo-Celtic derived heritage after WW2. It was stated last year that the number is down to %46. But the population sure the hell didn't go down.
The joke is governments are saying there is nowhere near ENOUGH people, so they are immigrating uneducated masses to help you out! Confused Duckman69?
Point is population growth is a cultural tactic of survival and dominance. The third world understands this, and they are coming to a neighborhood near you.
Short sighted leftist thinking has crippled the West. No children because their job is more important (radical feminism has declared that a Woman must work and not raise a family). No kids because there is no food/water (funny how the third world is continuing to breed like they always have). No kids because the one you have is so special they cost you a fortune with all the special care they need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zuul
like this
I personally prefer robots that look like robots. That way there is no uncanny valley and no risk of robots being confused for people.
 
I think the robot the one guy made on his own looked more realistic and had better movements. The university really needs to hire him.
 
Ducman69 said:
And herein lies the problem. Rational people would look at the below graph, and be frightened into action:
PopGraph.gif

Yet others say that even the most overpopulated places in the world are just fine, and if their birth rate falls below 2.0, its a catastrophe that must be remedied. *bangs head on table*

East-asians and Europeans are the model that everyone else should be following, but it does no good if they practice family planning if the rest of the world just makes up for it and then some, popping out kids like nobodies business and then having them flood the countries trying to stabilize their populations to improve quality of life.
Click to expand...
Europeans won't exist in 40 years and merely surplanted by a fast growing population. Yeah, that's a plan to follow.
 


After watching that video I clicked on the suggest Youtube video above. Apologies if this was already posted.
 
jpm100 said:
Europeans won't exist in 40 years and merely surplanted by a fast growing population. Yeah, that's a plan to follow.
Click to expand...
There are almost a billion white people on the planet, they are under no threat of extinction.

Yes, Indians, the middle-east, and Mexico need to get their shit under control and stop breeding like rabbits, but if you don't want foreign hordes replacing the native population in order to control population growth and quality of life, simply close your borders. Its not complicated. We just choose not to enforce our borders, but we easily have the power to do so.

Japan is already doing this, with only a 1% foreign guest population. They are being responsible and gradually reducing their population size. Five or six more generations of that, and Japan may not be so ridiculously overcrowded. A retirement income system using something more like a 401K would eliminate concerns about elderly care, since each generation is providing for their own retirement income when they work.
 
variant said:
Japan is not overpopulated, their major cities (specifically Tokyo) are overpopulated. People flock to cities from the countryside and rural towns which leaves some small towns with very low populations, and in some cases no one but the elderly Eventually, they will all just be ghost towns.
Click to expand...

You see the same thing happening in the USA. All the farm-kids drop the dead-end farm life and go to the city for an education and jobs. Tons of ghost towns out on the Great Plains that went belly up in the last 30-40 years. First due to the boom-bust of the aerospace industry in the Plains, then the information age left the prairie all but behind.
 
The population growth trends are deceptive.

Yes, the last couple centuries have seen exponential growth. This comes with better agriculture, medicine, logistics, etc.

Along with all of these advances also means less needs for babies due to more safe environments, automation, and education. It is why the most advanced nations have relatively low birth rates compared to third-world countries.

Previously you needed to crank out babies because of high infant mortality rates, needing people to run your farm without paying a worker or buying a slave, and for children to sell to other families/farms/use for weddings/political reasons. These are all dying reasons for large birth rates, except for countries where these reasons still play an active majority of the culture. Now people want a child for the fulfillment of having a child, or for the purpose of passing legacy, so the need to keep popping out babies just isn't there as cultural goals change.

Will world population trends continue exponentially in the near-term? Yes. But it will slow down as more countries/regions join the modern ages.
 
Love is business

Business is war

Love is war

War is War


There is only War
 
mope54 said:
wasn't sure where that "informative" post was going to end up, but the liberal conspiracy turn at the end was quite gratifying.
Click to expand...

Was waiting for it to get good. Wasn't disappointed.
 
Mohonri said:
A couple points on the overpopulation argument:
1) Linear graphs are pointless when charting population growth.
2) This type of population growth is only possible with the (frankly incredible) advances in efficiency of food production.
3) The worries about population decline have everything to do with economics, and little to do with environmental impact. Historically, countries have had many more workers than retirees. Countries like Japan and China are looking at a rapid transition to a situation where the percent of retirees is much higher and the percent of workers much lower. That is expected to be very disruptive.
Click to expand...
 
funkydmunky said:
Okay this thread is littered with ignorance. Western culture (we will throw Japan in that mix) has a pathetic birth rate. In Europe not a single country has a birth rate over 1.8. This has nothing to do with food. This is a fact of a society where it takes two to make it in the culture that frowns on historic norms. No country or culture has ever survived with a low level birth rate. I believe 2.4 is the number needed to have a future.
For example I believe Great Britain is somewhere around 1.6. Strangely enough Muslim immigrants are over 7! At the rate of influx native Europeans will be a minority in 25 years. Great Britain was %98 native Anglo-Celtic derived heritage after WW2. It was stated last year that the number is down to %46. But the population sure the hell didn't go down.
The joke is governments are saying there is nowhere near ENOUGH people, so they are immigrating uneducated masses to help you out! Confused Duckman69?
Point is population growth is a cultural tactic of survival and dominance. The third world understands this, and they are coming to a neighborhood near you.
Short sighted leftist thinking has crippled the West. No children because their job is more important (radical feminism has declared that a Woman must work and not raise a family). No kids because there is no food/water (funny how the third world is continuing to breed like they always have). No kids because the one you have is so special they cost you a fortune with all the special care they need.
Click to expand...
?
 
Xrave said:
Will world population trends continue exponentially in the near-term? Yes. But it will slow down as more countries/regions join the modern ages.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, it takes serious re-education to break through cultural barriers.

Muslims and hispanics in the US still crank out babies like its going out of style, with a similar story in Europe, negating the efforts of the white and asian populations trying to get things under control. Some imams are even pushing for this openly, as a way to take over by breeding until they represent a political majority like some kind of combination Trojan Horse / Zergling rush.

Hopefully the east-asians can come up with advanced enough robotics ASAP to parachute into these regions and get them to slow their roll, lol!
 
I'm not going to tell people how to run their country, but replacing your culture and ethnicity with foreign ones seems like a bad idea even if the economics makes sense on paper. Oh well, Europe had a good run.
 
Ducman69 said:
That's a hurdle you jump once, and never have to jump again once you have stabilized.

Otherwise, the solution is to always have a perpetually increasing population size like we presently do, which is unsustainable.

And yes, we are producing more food, but at the sacrifice of habitat destruction and quality of life. If we had the population of 1950 in the US today, we could set aside massive nature reserves and hugely reduce our consumption and pollution and waste production while simultaneously enjoying a far higher quality of life.

Its like when a farmer dies and wants to split up his farm land between his children. Its fine if he has two kids, but if he has 10 kids, they each only get a tiny slice. And if each of them have 10 kids, they are fighting for scraps with waste everywhere.

And if anything, thanks to advances in automation, the need for human labor to advance civilization is drastically reduced, and would be advanced far faster with fewer children given greater investment per child. 500 new scientists is far more advantageous than figuring out the logistics of feeding, entertaining, housing, and cleaning up after 5,000 simpletons with 20 scientists among them.

This is basic stuff most kids figured out playing Sid Meiers Civilization, lol!
Click to expand...
1) You're assuming that A) the hurdle *can* be jumped, and that B) once over the hurdle, the system will stabilize. I'm not a history expert, but neither of those assumptions have been borne out by the historical record. The speed at which these transitions are taking place is an exacerbating factor as well.
2) You're worried about nature preserves and land use? The US Federal gov't already owns about 28% of the land area in the US. How much is enough? Of all US agriculture, about 20% is exported (which benefits our economy). We also devote something like 45 million acres to produce ethanol.
3) I'm not sure that I would promote Civilization as a way to understand the nuances of public policy.
 
Mohonri said:
1) You're assuming that A) the hurdle *can* be jumped, and that B) once over the hurdle, the system will stabilize. I'm not a history expert, but neither of those assumptions have been borne out by the historical record. The speed at which these transitions are taking place is an exacerbating factor as well.
2) You're worried about nature preserves and land use? The US Federal gov't already owns about 28% of the land area in the US. How much is enough? Of all US agriculture, about 20% is exported (which benefits our economy). We also devote something like 45 million acres to produce ethanol.
3) I'm not sure that I would promote Civilization as a way to understand the nuances of public policy.
Click to expand...
I don't know about the rest of your argument, but bragging about ethanol feels misinformed: Ethanol: Useless for Energy Independence, Bad for the Hungry | Heartlander Magazine
 
Quix said:
I personally prefer robots that look like robots. That way there is no uncanny valley and no risk of robots being confused for people.
Click to expand...

Yea, at this point I'm sure tons of folks would rather go for something like this:

bjork5.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top