For practical and safety reasons, when fembot tech is ready, we will have to intentionally program malfunctions, if we want fembots to perform them..
I imagine:
- The fembot's behavioral systems are flawless in their operation.
- In her physical performance,
- in the tight integration of hardware with software to co-ordinate motions and actions.
Her personality can be similarly rock-solid: a weaker-than-A.I. system weighing and executing pre-programmed routines drawn from a very large library, then matrixed with the Simplified source personality (call her Sara),
to ask, "What desirable actions might a Stepfordized Sara perform in this circumstance?"
The resulting interactions could be as sophisticated as finely computed Chess. Far better even than Cherry 2000.
Alternately, install the Malfunction Package.
Robot hardware: still utterly reliable.
Software driving robot's actions: still utterly reliable.
Weaker-than-A.I. system: checking the potential outcomes of candidate behaviors,
- drawn instead from a massively parallel emulation, where malfunctions of all types can be modeled, eliminating all scenarios resulting in damage, harm, or loss of arousal.
The "Stepfordized Sara" is matrixed with screened behaviors from the emulator, to impart Lisa's personal touch.
Sliders can be set:
- how much lust? (Can she control her urges in public?)
- how much malfunction? (how often? how severe/obvious?)
- how much uncomprehending neurosis as the result?
-- Can she even believe that she could be a robot?
-- or, because the concept is so arousing, is she programmed to malfunction in her every attempt to calculate that possibility?
I'm trying here to get at the principles in common amongst many stories here and at MCStories.
I welcome your thoughts, anyone?*
- Dale Coba
*almost anyone
