Anonymous: Someone apparently isn't familiar with pleasurebots.

A hooker robot would be in line with the second law idiot, and save humans from STDs and shit meaning that it’d also obey the first .-.

The danger in robosexuality is that the species stops putting effort into being a society, because they can get pleasure from obedient machines instead of fighting to get sentient beings into consenting a sex. A hookar requires effort because $$$ so it still is a productive relation, but dating them grants free secks.

Get the fuckin point already youu… dense motherfuckers è____é

I’ve now resroted to copypasting myself, I hope you’re happy with yourself .-.

Anonymous: Gladys the shark not GLaDOS from portal. GLaDOS was formerly human though.

nomiros:

zedrin-maybe:

nomiros:

adurot:

not-reality:

gearholder:

Shark is okay, it doesn’t endanger human existance. MAYBE the genpool, but the planet’s still safe so it’s okay yes.

As for this, you shush zed, you didn’t even know what the 3 Laws of Robotics were until I told ya, so you can’t advice these kids in safe robot interface
t(û.ú t)

You didn’t know the three laws…?

Why are we allowing someone who doesn’t know the three laws to make robots?! That’s irresponsible and dangerous!

You didn’t know the three laws ? O.o

I knew what the 3 laws were, just hadn’t ever heard them referred to as a specific title or official thing. But either way they would’ve been silly and restrictive.

To be fair, 90% of Asimov’s writing is demonstrating how useless his own three laws are in practice.

NEVER CALL THE LAWS USELSS, NUMEROS (╯°Д°）╯︵/(.□ . \)

THE LAWS ARE THERE FOR OUR BENEFIT DAMINT, IF YOU WANT YOUR NON-ASENIONS RUNING WILD AMONG HUMANS THAT’S FINE, BUT I GOT PRINCIPLES AND WORK ETHICS TO FOLLOW.