1) Finish writing and post your responses to Zizek’s article on the blog by Thursday.  (I’ve copied the questions below.)  In your response, introduce and discuss at least one quotation from the article (we’ve been practicing this recently—see Course Notes for help).
2) Finish reading Michelle Nijhuis’ guide to bullshit prevention and come to class prepared to talk about what she’s saying and how it might be important for thinking about research strategies.
Zizek Response Qs:
—1) What is the argument Zizek is responding to? Where does it become clear that he agrees/disagrees with this argument?
—2) Which points in this argument does Zizek respond to with criticism?
—3) What are some of the strategies Zizek uses to critique the argument he disagrees with? (e.g. analogy/comparison, logical reasoning, rhetorical questions, etc.)
—4) What is YOUR response to all of this?  Do you agree with Zizek? Why/why not?  Do you have any life experience with any of the topics mentioned in the article (eg, video games)?  How does this experience influence your response to this topic?
ChanChan MyintÂ
Nov 14,2019Â
What is the argument Zizek is responding to? Â
Zizek is responding to news report: regarding if sexbots should have human rights.
 Where does it become clear that he agrees/disagrees with this argument?
They mention that “…if a sexbot rejects our rough advances, does this not simply mean that it was programmed in this way?”
 Which points in this argument does Zizek respond to with criticism?
If someone has an aggressive behavior problem maybe giving the person an sexbot will somehow satisfy him and he will not do them in real life.
 What are some of the strategies Zizek uses to critique the argument he disagrees with? (e.g. analogy/comparison, logical reasoning, rhetorical questions, etc.)
Zizek used logical reasoning to provide his opinion on the debate of sexbots.
Do you agree with Zizek? Why/why not? Do you have any life experience with any of the topics mentioned in the article (eg, video games)? How does this experience influence your response to this topic?
I do not agree with Zizek because if sexbot look like humans they should get the same treatment. I also believed that people’s using sexbots might escalate to hurting actual human beings. first testing it on robot than human next. Because from my crime show I’ve seen killer  torturing animals first than killing humans later in life.Â
—1) What is the argument Zizek is   responding to? Where does it become clear that he agrees/disagrees with this argument?Â
Zizek argued if ethics should apply to machines. (“the incident spurred debate on the need to raise the issue of ethics in relation to machines…”)
—2) Which points in this argument does Zizek respond to with criticism?Â
When Zizek brings up, that sex bots are use to satisfy the costumers needs in any way possible. (“Their projects will do anything to indulge their customers”)
—3) What are some of the strategies Zizek uses to critique the argument he disagrees with?Â
Zizek uses logical reasoning to critique the argument. For example when Zizek argues that the reason these companies want ethics to apply to machines is to squash the problematic aggressive desires of us humans.
—4) What is YOUR response to all of this?  Do you agree with Zizek? Why/why not?  Do you have any life experience with any of the topics mentioned in the article?  How does this experience influence your response to this topic?Â
I agree with Zizek. I don’t believe that ethics shouldn’t apply to machines. Reason being that these AI’s can be programmed to feel how ever the manufactures wants. So there really isn’t no self thinking involved, just predetermined protocols. The only experience I have with this topic is because of a video game called Detroit becomes human. A game where human like AI’s are invented. They are able to feel emotions and make their own choices. In the game their is a constant argument, if android should have human rights. That game help shape my mind when it comes to the topic at hand. Ultimately I believe that ethics should only apply to anything that can think and feel for its self.
Zizek is responding to the argument which states that AI machines need to have rights that limit what humans can do to these machines. He soon after stating the claim made by the person who wrote the news report states his personal position although not directly saying what he believes he dares to describe his train of thought saying what he thinks is right in that article and what its writer might have been trying to say and how he feels about it.
He responds to the point which says that robots need rights, he responds saying that “proponents id such demands do not really care about the AI machines but about aggressive humans.” Criticism the way that the news reports was written and clarifying that the actual preoccupation is not the robots themselves but the humans are doing to them and how those actions could be translated toward actual humans.
He uses logical reasoning to get the reader to the same page as far as understanding what he is trying to say about the arguments made before him and how he differs from them (Saying that obviously AI machines don’t feel anything but humans do) and also he uses comparisons to make the reader identify what the consequences could be and how it would translate in different types of media in what the same moral conditions may not apply (comparing to video games)
I agree with Zizek as far acknowledging that sex don’t feel anything and is better to leave a person to discharge whatever he feels in a machine that can’t feel than in an actual person, besides talking form my own experience with video games I believe that we all humans have different way to discharge our feeling without hurting others and video games have been working perfectly with that purpose. Games give people a chance to do things that the rest of humanity may not find morally acceptable, plus doing it in a controlled space where you can’t hurt nobody but yourself is far more acceptable that trying to oppress all these feelings or needs because one day they could all explode at once bringing even worse consequences that destroying one sex-bot.
—1) What is the argument Zizek is responding to? Where does it become clear that he agrees/disagrees with this argument?
Zizek is responding to whether sex bots should have rights. It becomes clear when he states that “proponents of such demands do not really care about the AI machines (they are well aware that they cannot really experience pain and humiliation) but about aggressive humans”
—2) Which points in this argument does Zizek respond to with criticism?
Zizek responds to his points in criticisms in the first paragraph in which he puts in italics and talks about a news report about a sex bot being molested
—3) What are some of the strategies Zizek uses to critique the argument he disagrees with? (e.g. analogy/comparison, logical reasoning, rhetorical questions, etc.)
Zizek uses rhetorical questions such as “The catch is, of course, will we, the sadistic perpetrators, still enjoy it in this case?” And logical reasoning to critique the argument he agrees with
—4) What is YOUR response to all of this?  Do you agree with Zizek? Why/why not?  Do you have any life experience with any of the topics mentioned in the article (eg, video games)?  How does this experience influence your response to this topic?
I agree with Zizek I do not believe sex bots have feelings and they are being molested but I do believe this can further on lead to danger for the community. It’s not much of a sex bot problem it’s about the people who are using the sex bots and what they can do
Zizek argued that AI Machines should have rights to what gets done to them and that they should have the same rights as humans do.  It becomes clear that he agrees it AI Machines having rights in paragraph 6 first sentence under finding answers … if they were programmed to say no doesn’t it mean that they deserve to have those basic rights.
Zizek responded to the information about how people that would possibly do damage to an AI can probably do damage in real life and it will make them more prone into doing so in the future creating damage in society but he believe that it’s not entirely true because to think of something and going to the extent to committing it is two very different things.
I’m his disagreements he made sure to state his claims and debunk the information given with other factual information and analyses.
Sadly, I do not agree with Zizek because the creation of an AI Machine is for them to do what they were created for no matter the circumstances. Instead of a robot saying no why not state when it’s being overused or overpowered or somewhat damaged.
1) what zizek is arguing in his article is if sex robots should have right or not. Throughout the article it is clearly seen that this is just not about sex robots, this is mainly about how aggressive people get with these sex bots, and how this could foreshadow to future issues with peoples aggressive behavior.
2) it becomes clear the agreement zizek is really trying to make when he says “ if a sexbot rejects our rough advances, does this not simply mean that it was programmed in this way?”.
3) What zizek used to critique the argument he disagrees with is “ The argument that those who fantasize about such things are prone to do them in real life is very problematic.”(Page 79) In this you can clearly tell exactly what his argument really is.
4) my response to zizeks argument is that I definitely agree with it. I don’t think aggressiveness towards robots made to perform sexual activities indicates someone is prone to do something terrible in real life. It’s sort of like saying if someone plays a violent video game and does violent things in a video game, would make them hurt someone in real life. I agree with his point, because I myself play violent video games but that won’t make me go do something violent to someone innocent. I agree with zizeks agreement and for someone to say that aggressiveness towards a robot made to perform those activities would indicate someone’s future intention is outrageous.
1) What is the argument Zizek is responding too? Where does it become clear that he agrees/disagrees with this argument?Â
– Zizek is responding to the argument that AI machines need to have rights and should limit what humans can do to them.
2)Â Which points in this argument does Zizek respond to with criticism?
– Zizek responds with criticism that if people can do damage to a robot they can do damage in real life to real people.
3)Â Â What are some of the strategies Zizek uses to critique the argument he disagrees with? (e.g. analogy/comparison, logical reasoning, rhetorical questions, etc.)
– Zizek uses logical reasoning to critique the argument he disagrees with.
4)Â What is YOUR response to all of this? Â Do you agree with Zizek? Why/why not? Â Do you have any life experience with any of the topics mentioned in the article (eg, video games)? Â How does this experience influence your response to this topic?
– I disagree with Zizek because his points do not make sense. In my opinion, he contradicts himself stating that AI machines come with a certain job then say they also have rights and that all does not make sense. If you are designing a machine to feed people’s wants or needs than you need to accept whatever happens to human-made objects. It does not make sense to create a object then say it can be “molested”. If they want to have actual valid points then create a word box for the damn robot that says “stop” or “no”.
1) Zizek is responding to the argument of whether sex bots should have rights.He disagrees with the argument by asking that “if we confer rights to AI sex bots and prohibit their brutal mistreatment, this means that we treat them as minimally autonomous and responsible entities – so should we also treat them as minimally ‘guilty’ if they mistreat us, or should we just blame their programmer?”
2)He responds to the point in which if the AI are given rights with criticism by saying that the AI might emerge with a “psychology ” which in some sense might be higher than ours.And they can also appear either more “evil” or more “good” than ours.
3)Zizek uses rhetorical questions as a strategy to critique the argument. Some examples are “if a sex bots rejects our rough advances, does this not simply mean that it was programmed in this way?” This question might not have an answer or might have an obvious answer.
4)I agree with Zizek because i think that sex bots should not have rights.Simply on the fact that they don’t have emotion or they can’t feel anything.They are created for this only job which is to give people pleasure.Without the programmers directions they are not able to do anything so there’s no point of giving them rights.I dont have any experience with any of the topic from the article.
1) Zizek is responding to the argument of whether sex bots should have rights.He disagrees with the argument by asking that “if we confer rights to AI sex bots and prohibit their brutal mistreatment, this means that we treat them as minimally autonomous and responsible entities – so should we also treat them as minimally ‘guilty’ if they mistreat us, or should we just blame their programmer?”
2)He responds to the point in which if the AI are given rights with criticism by saying that the AI might emerge with a “psychology ” which in some sense might be higher than ours.And they can also appear either more “evil” or more “good” than ours.
3)Zizek uses rhetorical questions as a strategy to critique the argument. Some examples are “if a sex bots rejects our rough advances, does this not simply mean that it was programmed in this way?” This question might not have an answer or might have an obvious answer.
4)I agree with Zizek because i think that sex bots should not have rights.Simply on the fact that they don’t have emotion or they can’t feel anything.They are created for this only job which is to give people pleasure.Without the programmers directions they are not able to do anything so there’s no point of giving them rights.I dont have any experience with any of the topic from the article.
—1) What is the argument Zizek is responding to? Where does it become clear that he agrees/disagrees with this argument?
Zizek is responding to does sexbots should have the same right as human. Zizek clear in his argument that “Human-robot sexual relationship is vital in a way similar to sexual relations between humans and it will help prevent the creation of a class of legally incorporated sex-slaves”
—2) Which points in this argument does Zizek respond to with criticism?
Zizek responds with criticism that sexbot made for human desire, “if a sexbot rejects our rough advances, does this not simply mean that it was programmed in this way?”
—3) What are some of the strategies Zizek uses to critique the argument he disagrees with? (e.g. analogy/comparison, logical reasoning, rhetorical questions, etc.)
Zizek uses question critique the argument. For example when he was asking the reader “is it batter to allow someone to plat with machines, with the hope that, in this way he will satisfied enough and not do them i real life?”
—4) What is YOUR response to all of this?  Do you agree with Zizek? Why/why not?  Do you have any life experience with any of the topics mentioned in the article (eg, video games)?  How does this experience influence your response to this topic?
I agree with Zizek because i think that sex robots should not have rights. It’s jest a machine which is made by people to give people pleasure those who are addicted in sex. I feel like it batter to let those people play with this sexbots, in this way they will be satisfied enough and not do them in real life.
—1) What is the argument Zizek is responding to? Where does it become clear that he agrees/disagrees with this argument?
Zizek’s argument is about whether sexbots should have rights or not. In paragraph 5 it becomes more clear that he thinks sexbots should not have rights.
—2) Which points in this argument does Zizek respond to with criticism?
In the second paragraph Zizek responds with criticism by writing, “Although these ideas are just a specific application of a proposal for the EU to impose the basic “rights” for AI (artificial intelligence), the domain of sexbots brings out in a clear way the implicit presuppositions that determine such thinking. We are basically dealing with laziness in thinking: by adopting such “ethical” attitudes, we comfortably avoid the complex web of underlying problems.”
—3) What are some of the strategies Zizek uses to critique the argument he disagrees with? (e.g. analogy/comparison, logical reasoning, rhetorical questions, etc.)
In the previous quote he is saying that people are just bailing out of the conversation by looking at it from an ethical point of view. He uses logical reasoning throughout the article.
—4) What is YOUR response to all of this?  Do you agree with Zizek? Why/why not?  Do you have any life experience with any of the topics mentioned in the article (eg, video games)?  How does this experience influence your response to this topic?
Personally, I do not think sex robot’s should be able to refuse sex, or have any rights at that. They were made for a purpose, for sex, and they do not have any feelings regardless. So even if it may seem ethically wrong, it isn’t wrong. But to top it off, I do not have any experience with sex robots.