Ethan Zuckerman: So, wel­come back from lunch, every­one. If you attend a lot of con­fer­ences, as I do, you know that this slot imme­di­ate­ly after lunch is the slot that’s real­ly hard to speak in. Because every­one just wants to be hav­ing the con­ver­sa­tion they were hav­ing over lunch. Everyone’s in a food coma. And so we thought we would com­pli­cate mat­ters by tak­ing both the hard­est slot to fill in a con­fer­ence and then tak­ing on per­haps the most fraught top­ic that we’re going to work on today. You’ll remem­ber that when I start­ed this I said that part of our goal in all of this was to make sure that we made every­body in the room uncom­fort­able. My guess is that this top­ic is going to get a lot of peo­ple on that front.

One of the big things that we’re going to talk about here is para­phil­ia. We’re going to talk about sex­u­al deviance. We’re going to talk about the prob­lem of peo­ple whose sex­u­al desires lead to attrac­tion to chil­dren, lead to attrac­tion towards vio­lent sex, lead to sex­u­al trans­gres­sion in one fash­ion or anoth­er. To be real­ly clear, we’re not show­ing explic­it imagery in this pan­el. But this is a pan­el that may well be trig­ger­ing for peo­ple. If you’re a sur­vivor of sex­u­al assault, if this is an issue that you know that you have a hard time with, it’s a beau­ti­ful day. I would encour­age you to enjoy the bal­cony, to have anoth­er con­ver­sa­tion, to take a break for about an hour. 

But we’re going to try to deal with this very chal­leng­ing top­ic because it’s a top­ic that has lots of real-world impli­ca­tions. There’s some­thing like eleven thou­sand reg­is­tered sex offend­ers in the state of Massachusetts. There are thir­teen hun­dred at the moment serv­ing time for sex crimes. Perhaps most chal­leng­ing, there are sev­er­al hun­dred peo­ple in the state who are in indef­i­nite civil con­fine­ment. And the rea­son for this is that the­se are sex offend­ers who have com­plet­ed their pris­on sen­tences, but there are con­cerns about releas­ing them into the gen­er­al pop­u­la­tion because there’s fears of recidi­vism. And Professor Arkin and I have been real­ly try­ing to research this ques­tion of what are the sta­tis­tics on recidi­vism? What’s the rate on this? We, just doing some Googling over din­ner last night, found num­bers rang­ing from 10% to 50% for con­vict­ed pedophiles, which sug­gests more than any­thing else that there just isn’t a ton of research on this. When you have a range that wide, it sug­gests that we know very lit­tle indeed.

One thing that we do know from research in this field is that most peo­ple who are afflict­ed with pedophil­ia are active­ly try­ing to fight the­se urges. And when they talk to ther­a­pists, what they end up say­ing is that they’re try­ing very very hard not to act on the urges that they’re suf­fer­ing from. And they do describe it as suf­fer­ing from.” And so the top­ic that we’re look­ing at, which is real­ly this ques­tion of whether there are ways of treat­ing para­phil­ias with com­put­er imagery, with vir­tu­al real­i­ty, pos­si­bly with inti­mate robot­ics (which is a term that I hadn’t heard until the oth­er day), this is the top­ic that we’re going to try to take on here. So, it’s a chal­leng­ing top­ic. We’re lucky to have an incred­i­ble set of peo­ple will­ing to take on this issue here with us on stage. 

To the very far side of me, my friend Dr. Kate Darling. She’s a legal schol­ar who looks at a wide vari­ety of sub­jects, but late­ly has been look­ing at sort of real-world impli­ca­tions of human-robot inter­ac­tions. And not look­ing to the dis­tant future and Asimov’s Law, but real­ly look­ing at right now. What are we doing in our inter­ac­tions with robots? How does this work? How do we inter­act with one anoth­er?

Slightly closer, my col­league and friend Christina Couch who works in the Comparative Media Studies depart­ment, is also an accom­plished tech­nol­o­gy jour­nal­ist and free­lance writer who has writ­ten on this ques­tion of com­put­er imagery, vir­tu­al real­i­ty, and how it fits in with ques­tions of para­phil­ias.

And then imme­di­ate­ly to my left, Professor Ron Arkin from the Georgia Tech College of Computing. He’s some­one who’s done exten­sive work on robot­ics and robot ethics. And while he’s nor­mal­ly some­one that we bring to the table to talk about ques­tions like autonomous killer robots, he’s also some­one who’s going to talk with us on this sub­ject as well. But since Dr. Darling put this pan­el togeth­er, she’s going to lead us off.

Kate Darling: Don’t wor­ry, I don’t have any slides. So as Ethan men­tioned I’m a researcher here at the Lab, and I wear two dif­fer­ent paths. But some­thing that I’m very intense­ly inter­est­ed in is the field of human-robot inter­ac­tion, so the study of how we behave around robots. And I would say that the sin­gle most fas­ci­nat­ing thing to me about robots is that peo­ple will treat them as though they’re alive.

Now, of course every­one knows that robots are just machi­nes. They’re just pro­grammed to do things. But sub­con­scious­ly when we inter­act with robots, we treat them as though they’re alive. And for many of us who work in human-robot inter­ac­tion, a lot of us believe that this isn’t just a mat­ter of peo­ple get­ting used to a new tech­nol­o­gy that they’re unac­cus­tomed to but rather some­thing that’s bio­log­i­cal. So, our brains may be bio­log­i­cal­ly hard­wired to project intent and life onto any move­ment in our phys­i­cal space that seems autonomous to us. And there’s a whole body of research that is doc­u­ment­ing how strong­ly we respond to the cues that the­se life­like machi­nes give us.

And the rea­son this is cool is because it gives us this real­ly inter­est­ing lens through which we can study human psy­chol­o­gy. So for exam­ple, I did a study here at the Media Lab with Palash Nandy where we found that peo­ple who have low empathic con­cern for oth­ers, they will treat a robot dif­fer­ent­ly than peo­ple who have high empathic con­cern. So, we can use robots to mea­sure human empa­thy. And in this con­text, robots— I mean the fact that peo­ple treat them sort of like a liv­ing thing makes them poten­tial­ly a real­ly great tool to study and explore sex­u­al behav­iors and sex­u­al urges and try to under­stand those bet­ter. And that in itself is very use­ful as a research ques­tion since we know so lit­tle about this.

But there are actu­al­ly more ques­tions that I’m inter­est­ed in. So, one thing that I want to know is not just can we mea­sure or observe people’s behav­ior with robots, but can we change it? So, could we use robots ther­a­peu­ti­cal­ly to help peo­ple man­age their behav­ior, con­trol their urges, that type of thing. And anoth­er ques­tion I have which I think is very impor­tant is, once child-size sex robots hit the mar­ket, which they will, is the use of the­se robots going to be a healthy out­let for peo­ple to express the­se sex­u­al urges and thus pro­tect chil­dren and reduce child abuse? Or is the use of the­se robots going to encour­age, nor­mal­ize, prop­a­gate, that behav­ior and endan­ger chil­dren in the­se people’s envi­ron­ments?

And we just don’t know the answer to this. We have no idea what direc­tion this goes in, and we can’t research it. Because aside from the fact that there’s this incred­i­ble social stig­ma, of course, to doing work like this or even talk­ing about it, and not to men­tion the lack of research fund­ing, there are also report­ing require­ments in the United States that make it vir­tu­al­ly impos­si­ble to work with peo­ple who haven’t already been con­vict­ed of sex crimes and often have been in jail for them. So you have a very dif­fi­cult and very skewed sam­ple of the pop­u­la­tion that we need to be study­ing.

And I under­stand why peo­ple want report­ing require­ments. But I do won­der whether they’re doing more harm than good in the­se cas­es. Because as much as peo­ple want the­se sex­u­al urges—the urges, not the act—to be a moral fail­ing, they are a psy­cho­log­i­cal issue, and if we real­ly care about help­ing chil­dren we might need to be a lit­tle bit more pre­emp­tive about this.

So I’ll just fin­ish by say­ing that courts all over the world have been strug­gling since the ear­ly mid-2000s with the ques­tion of vir­tu­al child pornog­ra­phy. So, com­put­er gen­er­at­ed images that aren’t actu­al chil­dren. Courts don’t know what to do with the­se because no child has been harmed in mak­ing them. And the tech­nol­o­gy that brings this to a more extreme, more phys­i­cal, more real lev­el, is on the hori­zon. And while high-quality sex robots are not actu­al­ly com­ing as quick­ly as many peo­ple think they are, they’re com­ing more quick­ly than society’s will­ing to have this con­ver­sa­tion. So, I’m very grate­ful to be here today in a room full of real­ly smart peo­ple who care about mak­ing the world a bet­ter place to dis­cuss this very sen­si­tive, very dif­fi­cult, and I think very impor­tant issue. 

Zuckerman: So Kate, I just want you to unpack some­thing a lit­tle bit, because it went by very quick­ly. Child pornog­ra­phy ends up being pro­hib­it­ed for at least two rea­sons. One is that we don’t think such a thing should exist, or that’s been a soci­etal deci­sion. But the more impor­tant rea­son in many ways is that a child is harmed and exploit­ed in the course of pro­duc­ing the­se images. 3D mod­el­ing, the abil­i­ty to cre­ate dig­i­tal imagery, starts rais­ing this pos­si­bil­i­ty of vir­tu­al child pornog­ra­phy. What’s US law’s take on this thus far, and are there oth­er jurisdictions—because you’re not just a lawyer but an inter­na­tion­al legal scholar—are there oth­er juris­dic­tions that have end­ed up han­dling this issue of vir­tu­al child porn dif­fer­ent­ly?

Darling: Yeah. So, it’s com­pli­cat­ed. In the United States we had, I think in ’96, an act that for­bade computer-generated images of chil­dren, and the Supreme Court struck that down in… Do you remem­ber when it was?

Christina Couch: I think it’s 2002.

Darling: In 2002, the Supreme Court said that there was a fun­da­men­tal free speech issue if you’re crim­i­nal­iz­ing just computer-generated images and not an act that actu­al­ly harms peo­ple. And so they end­ed up strik­ing down two of the pro­vi­sions of this act. Since then, there’s been a new act called PROTECT that was passed, which now pro­hibits computer-generated images, or car­toons or whatever—it actu­al­ly explic­it­ly says cartoons—but only if they’re obscene. So they’ve kind of shift­ed away from the child piece towards obscen­i­ty, which is a very con­vo­lut­ed, very com­pli­cat­ed thing that’s not well-defined and kind depends on com­mu­ni­ty stan­dards. So the US has strug­gled because we have such strong First Amendment rights.

Other coun­tries have flat out banned this, like Germany, I believe. And then oth­er coun­tries like Holland have just strug­gled with cas­es where they want to ban it, so they find some oth­er rea­son. Like there was a video that was teach­ing young girls to per­form fel­la­tio, and they end­ed up crim­i­nal­iz­ing that based on the fact that it was tar­get­ed at young girls and try­ing to teach them improp­er behav­ior or unde­sir­able behav­iors rather than the fact that it was a car­toon that depict­ed girls. So it’s very com­pli­cat­ed and I think courts haven’t fig­ured out a good way to strike that bal­ance.

Zuckerman: So, I think we’re going to get back to this ques­tion of what the legal sta­tus is, but we’re also going to be wrestling with this ques­tion of what is exploita­tive of of chil­dren, and what is some­thing that’s ille­gal­ized because it’s uncom­fort­able, it’s social­ly unde­sir­able. And how does that work in with ques­tions of what might be ther­a­peu­tic, what might be help­ful. But I want to pass it to Professor Arkin.

Ron Arkin: I do have slides. I gave a talk just recent­ly in Italy, a paper writ­ten joint­ly with a col­league of mine from Georgia Tech, a philoso­pher named Jason Borenstein. But I’m not going to give that talk here. Just to let you know that I have a few things I’ve reused from it. 

And I’ve been involved quite some­time. I’ve been a roboti­cist for close to—maybe even over—thirty years as well. And I do work in sex, lies, and vio­lence I guess is the best way to describe it. There’s plen­ty of mon­ey, in some ways, for deal­ing with lethal autonomous weapons sys­tems. And the US depart­ment of defense doesn’t do that specif­i­cal­ly, but I work on eth­i­cal aspects of that. But that’s nei­ther here nor there for today.

I also, sup­pos­ed­ly, accord­ing to—that was New York mag­a­zine—taught robots how to lie at one point, and that got us a small piece on The Daily Show, among oth­er things as well in terms of the ques­tions of what are you doing with the­se sorts of things. But we weren’t for­bid­den, and we’re still doing work in robot decep­tion. But I’m not talk­ing about that today.

What I am talk­ing about is a place where there is no mon­ey to be able to get this kind of research, which is in the broad­er aspects of this. And so this notion of inti­mate robot­ics (Which actu­al­ly is an out­growth of work that Genevieve Bell at Intel did many years ago in an ubi­comp con­fer­ence on inti­mate com­put­ing. I know there was some work here in the Media Lab also that was por­trayed in that case.) deals with more than just sex. Sex toys and sex machi­nes have been around since man and wom­en have been around as well, too. That’s noth­ing new. That’s not what I’m wor­ried about. And this is my sec­ond great­est con­cern with the impacts upon soci­ety. The first again is the lethal autonomous weapons sys­tems which is hap­pen­ing now. This one is about to hap­pen or is hap­pen­ing as we go. But I worked with Sony for ten years and Sony Aibo. On Qrio as well, which were the­se small plat­forms and have patents in robot emo­tions as well.

So the ques­tion is, we know how to (and you guys know as well, too) at least many here, know how to make peo­ple fall in love with the­se kinds of plat­forms. Now for a small dog… You can talk about pet psy­chother­a­py and oth­er aspects as well to it, there are clear­ly ben­e­fi­cial roles. But what if we start doing it where we cross this prox­emic bound­ary. Instead of socio­con­sul­tive space or a famil­iar space, but we get into the inti­mate space where the­se sys­tems start to engage with us more and more deeply?

And so there are many ques­tions which I share. I spend a week with my under­grad­u­ate class in robots in soci­ety talk­ing about this par­tic­u­lar top­ic, and the­se are the kinds of things. I mean, it’s not just a ques­tion for sex deviants. Do you become a deviant if you engage in sex with a robot? I mean, what does it real­ly mean if you actu­al­ly start get­ting involved with this hunk of met­al and plas­tic and get­ting it on? That’s an inter­est­ing ques­tion itself. The points that I’m also inter­est­ed in the con­text of the premise for this par­tic­u­lar ses­sion, can it serve kind of like methadone for the­se sex offend­ers, pedophiles, and the like, as well? Will it help to sub­li­mate their desires? We don’t know. This is a research ques­tion, and it needs to be explored.

And the cost if we don’t explore it is intol­er­a­bly high. Whether the recidi­vism rate is 10% or 50%, that’s 10% or 50% too much. And the point is if the­se peo­ple, which we choose to do as a soci­ety, are released back into soci­ety, there will be more vic­tims. Let’s just face that fact. And we need to find a way to cope with that. And this is poten­tial­ly one. We don’t want to make the world worse, either, as a con­se­quence of that. So there’s a lot of issues, just as there are with weapons sys­tems, asso­ci­at­ed with the­se sorts of things. 

So, this whole notion of talk­ing about this is just in many cas­es off the board. There was a love and sex with robots work­shop at a com­put­ing enter­tain­ment meet­ing that Malaysia came and shut down that con­fer­ence as well. They called it ridicu­lous, but I think it was more than just ridicu­lous from their per­spec­tive, it’s taboo. It is com­plete­ly taboo to talk about the­se par­tic­u­lar issues. And I thank you for this par­tic­u­lar forum to start to raise the­se par­tic­u­lar ques­tions with this audi­ence and with those that are not in the room as well.

The point is, many of you here are famil­iar I’m sure with the Uncanny Valley. That’s prob­a­bly noth­ing new to you. But we are start­ing, some peo­ple, and I’ll show Ishiguro’s work as well, that come out of the val­ley of zom­bies at the bot­tom of that par­tic­u­lar chart. Interesting, I was think­ing about that the oth­er day. It’s a two-dimensional chart. One deals with behav­iors, and the oth­er deals with the mor­phol­o­gy or the shape or the appear­ance of the robot. The appear­ance we’re get­ting pret­ty good at, although not tac­tile and not with tem­per­a­ture con­trol and oth­er things like that as well. But behav­ior can still be a prob­lem. And the bot­tom of that is kin­da like zombie-like, and so necrophiles might be down in that par­tic­u­lar lev­el, if we real­ly want to talk about the breadth of abuse that occurs with­in human­i­ty.


This is Ishiguro’s lat­est work. I’ll have the plea­sure of vis­it­ing his lab­o­ra­to­ry in September, which I have not done. These are not sex robots, but he does have exten­sive fund­ing from Japan to con­tin­ue this par­tic­u­lar work, and he has a com­pa­ny as well to deal with the­se par­tic­u­lar kinds of plat­forms. It’s quite remark­able.

In the inter­est of time I will just move ahead and show you what the real state of the art is com­mer­cial­ly, which is kind of…not there. Let’s take a look at that. That’s Roxxxy over there, which actu­al­ly sup­pos­ed­ly—sup­pos­ed­ly—has AI because it can chat with you and tell you the base­ball scores and oth­er things as fore­play. So that’s the notion of that par­tic­u­lar robot.

The VR Robot as you see has a VR head and it has an arm which is doing what you think that arm is prob­a­bly doing in that case. And oth­er aspects as well deal with papers and oth­ers have been con­sid­ered how the pros­ti­tu­tion indus­try will pros­per through the use of robot dolls, and many robot lovers. And many say this is a good thing for wom­en because it will free pros­ti­tutes and the like. And oth­ers are say­ing it’s a bad thing because it’ll end the age-old pro­fes­sion. So, I don’t have a posi­tion on that. I’m just try­ing to tell you what’s com­ing down the pike.

Now this was a good arti­cle that was writ­ten by The Atlantic a while back. There is a com­pa­ny in Japan. I think it’s [Trottla], some­thing like that. I’ve actu­al­ly been in con­tact with the guy. I asked him if I could use some pic­tures for this talk and I decid­ed again­st it because, for the very rea­son I might end up being accused of child pornog­ra­phy, of hav­ing pic­tures of robot child dolls on that. But his moti­va­tion, report­ed­ly, and in the email mes­sage, is that he wants to help pedophiles. He wants to both reduce the urges, and he wants to help the vic­tims as well. So, this com­pa­ny can lead to a vari­ety of dif­fer­ent things.

One, if you look at the right side there, one of those robots was deliv­ered to Canada. The guy was arrest­ed and is await­ing tri­al. So what is…is it a crime? I mean, this is not just a com­put­er graph­ic image. It’s not nec­es­sar­i­ly based on any real child. But…what do we do with this? And so if you talk about methadone again, that’s prescription-oriented. Maybe there are cer­tain peo­ple that would war­rant this par­tic­u­lar case. And it would, in my esti­ma­tion, war­rant strong reg­u­la­tion and con­trol and not just be avail­able for the gen­er­al pub­lic. That to me would be the wrong answer.

But even more­so, there is the— Kathleen Richardson has start­ed the Campaign Against Sex Robots. You may have heard about the cam­paign again­st killer robots. Well this is kind of mod­eled after that. Not quite as big. But they had a state­ment on the pro­duc­tion of child sex dolls, and they said basi­cal­ly Japan should shut down this par­tic­u­lar guy. And we shouldn’t do it. It’s a pre­emp­tive ban. That’s what the killer robots, as well. We don’t want the­se kinds of robots. And so if you believe that, there’s an orga­ni­za­tion which you can sign up and join.

My big­ger con­cerns are how it affects our rela­tion­ships with each oth­er. Having the­se devices poten­tial­ly… And you’ve seen shows like, may­be some of you saw the TV show, I don’t even know if it’s been renewed, Humans, which had a robot which had an adult mode which the hus­band found and turned on and caused kin­da trou­ble in the rela­tion­ship over time. But Ex Machina, of course. And Blade Runner. I mean, we see this all time in Hollywood. But we can’t talk about it in the real world, which is real­ly strange in some ways. 

So there’s the­se notions of how the future is going to be affect­ed by the­se sorts of things. One sci­en­tific study came out of Stanford just recent­ly. And it talks about peo­ple becom­ing aroused if they touch a robot’s pri­vate parts. This is a gener­ic Nao robot. I’ve got two in the labs. And I used to pick it up at any place which I could get a hold of, but now I’m a lit­tle con­cerned if I do. But the­se are the kinds of plat­forms that can be used to show that peo­ple, if you’re told it’s a pri­vate part such as, what does it say? Please touch my but­tock,” in this par­tic­u­lar case, peo­ple might feel uncom­fort­able, and they report­ed this. But they report­ed this, in one of the most obscure con­fer­ences I ever heard of. And that’s prob­a­bly because it’s not ready to be sub­mit­ted. I could not find an attri­bu­tion of a fund­ing source, either. So I’m not sure it was nec­es­sar­i­ly fund­ed. I could be wrong on both of those counts, ulti­mate­ly.

And again, work­ing with Sony, we start­ed to learn the dif­fer­ences of the cul­tur­al vari­a­tions of where it’s appro­pri­ate to touch peo­ple and dif­fer­ent types of friends and oth­ers from say, the East ver­sus the West. And so if you’re a Japanese indi­vid­u­al, you would mind being touched in cer­tain places that Westerners might not, and vice ver­sa. These are the sorts of things that a robot design­er would think about.

So the goal I have, basi­cal­ly, is to estab­lish a research agen­da. The two ques­tions that I men­tion over here…the red ones are the ones that real­ly deal with the ques­tion here. Can we increase or decrease the vio­lent behavior—uh, we don’t want to increase it—but will it increase or decrease the vio­lent behav­ior by the user of the tech­nol­o­gy? And can it be used for ther­a­peu­tic pur­pos­es for dif­fer­ent types of poten­tial socio­pathic con­di­tions?

So, the real issue from my point of view is that we need to under­stand this because of the human-human rela­tion­ships that could poten­tial­ly be affect­ed by it. And I would con­tend that we have an eth­i­cal, and yes even moral oblig­a­tion accord­ing to our local codes here, to inves­ti­gate this. And if we don’t do so, we do so at our own per­il. So, I will stop with that. And if you’re inter­est­ed in some oth­er infor­ma­tion as well, you can find it at that source. Thank you very much.

Zuckerman: Ron, let me just ask one quick ques­tion before we go to Christina. When we were look­ing at your slides and sort of talk­ing this over yes­ter­day, one of the things that you were sug­gest­ing is that as inti­mate robots become more com­mon, that’s like­ly to be a rela­tion­ship that we have to deal with soci­etal­ly. People who end up decid­ing that they have robots pri­mar­i­ly as their sex part­ners, that may become an iden­ti­ty. There’s a good chance that that iden­ti­ty will end up being stig­ma­tized.

This ques­tion of nor­mal­iza­tion also rais­es this ques­tion of, if peo­ple are reg­u­lar­ly reliev­ing urges with child robots, is that also a nor­mal­iza­tion of behav­ior? And is that a dan­ger that by nor­mal­iz­ing that behav­ior, reg­u­lar­iz­ing that behav­ior, that this becomes less of a taboo and in some sense this actu­al­ly may become more dan­ger­ous in terms of pedophil­ia accep­tance?

Arkin: The real point here is we just have research hypothe­ses right now. We don’t have answers to those par­tic­u­lar ques­tions, and they def­i­nite­ly need to be inves­ti­gat­ed. The point that you men­tioned ear­lier is the fact that we have a rel­a­tive­ly small num­ber of peo­ple— And if you’ve ever seen, there’s a movie called Guys and Dolls? It’s not the movie Guys and Dolls (1955), but there’s anoth­er movie Guys and Dolls (2002) which talks about peo­ple kind of like Lars and the Real Girl, who actu­al­ly are…in some form deep attach­ments to the­se par­tic­u­lar plat­forms.

I expect as we get more sophis­ti­cat­ed plat­forms, the sec­tor will rapid­ly and sig­nif­i­cant­ly expand as well. How that pro­found­ly affects soci­ety is an unknown ques­tion, but we don’t want to wait and be reactive to it, we want to be proactive, and that’s what I’m try­ing to encour­age here, is proac­tive research into this space. Because hope­ful­ly as you’ve seen in some of those videos there, it’s hap­pen­ing. There’s a lot of mon­ey to be made if you get that even close to right in the near term, as it hap­pened with dig­i­tal video devices and the Internet, which are major pur­vey­ors of pornog­ra­phy. These kinds of things will find a home and a mar­ket and will be sold. And right now it’s hap­pen­ing in places like that, and not under appro­pri­ate guid­ance and eth­i­cal review. We need to con­sid­er this sig­nif­i­cant­ly so we don’t make the kinds of mis­takes that you’re talk­ing about.

Zuckerman: Ron, thanks so much. Christina, can I get you to con­tribute on may­be the visu­al imagery side of this dis­cus­sion as well?

Christina Couch: Hi. My name is Christina Couch and I am a free­lance sci­ence writer. So, specif­i­cal­ly what inter­ests me is tech­nol­o­gy, psy­chol­o­gy, and kind of the inter­sec­tions between those two things. So I’m real­ly inter­est­ed in things like how our feel­ings and thoughts and desires shape how tech­nolo­gies are designed, and in turn the impact that those tech­nolo­gies have on our psy­chol­o­gy and neu­rol­o­gy and the way that we inter­act with each oth­er.

So, what got me inter­est­ed in the top­ic of this par­tic­u­lar pan­el was about a year ago I was work­ing on an arti­cle about ther­a­peu­tic uses of vir­tu­al real­i­ty. So I was inter­view­ing researchers who are using vir­tu­al real­i­ty to treat things like post-traumatic stress dis­or­der, depres­sion, anx­i­ety, pho­bi­as, addic­tions, all sorts of things. And I stum­bled across a guy named Patrice Renaud, who is a researcher at a max­i­mum secu­ri­ty psy­chi­atric facil­i­ty in Montréal. And Dr. Renaud is actu­al­ly using vir­tu­al real­i­ty to study pedophiles, specif­i­cal­ly pedophiles right at the point of arousal, which his­tor­i­cal­ly has been an incred­i­bly dif­fi­cult thing to do because in order to have a study sub­ject be right at that point, you need some sort of stim­uli to get them there. And typ­i­cal­ly that’s images or audio files which come with the­se very very valid moral and legal issues attached to them. Super valid.

So Dr. Renaud actu­al­ly start­ed research­ing sex offend­ers in 1994. And at that point he was using pre­dom­i­nate­ly audio files to kind of do this research, and he wasn’t real­ly get­ting very good results. He was hav­ing a hard time get­ting enough data. When he was con­duct­ing his orig­i­nal exper­i­ments, his team actu­al­ly pub­lished a paper on which showed that even when they absolute­ly knew that a study sub­ject was a known pedophile, they could not evoke a phys­i­o­log­i­cal respon­se in about 40% of cas­es, using just audio files.

So, fast for­ward a few years when vir­tu­al real­i­ty becomes a lit­tle bit more acces­si­ble. Dr. Renaud start­ed build­ing vir­tu­al envi­ron­ments that came with…few­er legal and moral issues attached. And he actu­al­ly found that he was able to get a lot more data. And not only was able to get a lot more data, but he was also able to actu­al­ly find a dif­fer­ence in the phys­i­o­log­i­cal respon­se when a pedophile is aroused ver­sus a non-pedophile, and those dif­fer­ences are main­ly in motor and eye move­ment.

So when I heard this I was real­ly sort of blown away, because it with all the media that we have on sex offend­ers and recidi­vism rates, etc., etc., I was real­ly sur­prised that it is incred­i­bly dif­fi­cult to study this par­tic­u­lar group of peo­ple. And at the same time I was also real­ly sur­prised that of all the tools we have for study­ing crim­i­nol­o­gy, vir­tu­al real­i­ty was kind of a key piece of tech­nol­o­gy that opened up this par­tic­u­lar study.

So at the same time that we sort of have the­se new research tools, or at least poten­tial new research tools com­ing out, we’re also in the mid­dle of some­what of a shift in terms of how we think about child sex offend­ers. And at least a small part of that is due to groups like Virtuous Pedophiles. They are a sup­port group specif­i­cal­ly for pedophiles, run by pedophiles, and they’re designed to pre­vent peo­ple from act­ing out. So it’s a group that if peo­ple are feel­ing those types of incli­na­tions, they can go to this group and try and find tools and resources to pre­vent act­ing on their impuls­es.

And they’re not actu­al­ly the only group of their kind. A project of sort of a sim­i­lar fla­vor that’s been going on for a longer peri­od of time is in Germany. It’s called the Dunkelfeld Project, and that is a vol­un­tary con­fi­den­tial treat­ment for peo­ple who are pedophiles, specif­i­cal­ly designed to pre­vent them from act­ing out.

So, kind of at the same time that we have this poten­tial for new research tools and we also have acces­si­bil­i­ty to a pop­u­la­tion that his­tor­i­cal­ly has been much more dif­fi­cult to access, typ­i­cal­ly when those two things come togeth­er you see a lot of research com­ing out right at that inter­sec­tion. But for this par­tic­u­lar top­ic, there are still real­ly sig­nif­i­cant bar­ri­ers to doing that research. And I’m kind of hop­ing that our fel­low pan­elists who are actu­al­ly on the ground floor of doing research can talk about what some of the­se bar­ri­ers are. 

Zuckerman: Christina, thank you so much for that. Can you talk just a lit­tle bit about why this program’s been able to get off the ground in Germany? That this ther­a­peu­tic pro­gram in Germany that’s allow­ing peo­ple to come forth and actu­al­ly seek treat­ment, what are the bar­ri­ers again­st that in the United States at this point?

Couch: Well, I mean we still have, like Kate men­tioned, the report­ing issues. One of the things with the Dunkelfeld Project is that there aren’t report­ing issues, so peo­ple can come in and be com­plete­ly anony­mous. From what I under­stand they just get a digital—a num­ber. So you’re actu­al­ly just… There’s no names involved what­so­ev­er. So the report­ing issues are a lot dif­fer­ent.

And also they have a lot more sup­port. At some point there was a push by some group of peo­ple (all the qual­i­fiers in the world here) to actu­al­ly get this thing cov­ered under health insur­ance. Which is mind-blowing to me. I think you would have a real­ly tough time with that in the United States.

Zuckerman: It’s inter­est­ing. In the US, some­thing that is becom­ing more com­mon is the option of chem­i­cal cas­tra­tion as a respon­se to pedophilic urges. And there are cas­es, at least in Massachusetts, where Lupron, which is the drug that peo­ple end up using for this, has been cov­ered under pre­scrip­tion insur­ance.

What’s inter­est­ing to me in some ways is the idea that this is a treat­able con­di­tion. And that what we’re see­ing are essen­tial­ly the­se sort of vol­un­tary groups try­ing to help peo­ple who self-identify as pedophiles not act on urges. And to pick up Professor Arkin’s notion that, is there a pos­si­bil­i­ty that this is the methadone to hero­in? That hav­ing, whether it’s vir­tu­al real­i­ty imagery, whether it’s inti­mate robots, there’s some way of sort of pre­vent­ing this. It seems like the big shift that we would have to have first is an under­stand­ing of para­phil­ias as a med­ical prob­lem, a psy­cho­log­i­cal prob­lem, rather than a moral fail­ing.

Kate, can you talk a lit­tle bit about how the legal sys­tem makes that change? So you know, there was a moment in time where homo­sex­u­al­i­ty was moral fail­ing and crime, and then became dis­ease. And then over time has become nor­mal­ized. How does law deal with changes from some­thing being eth­i­cal­ly unac­cept­able to being med­ical­ized?

Darling: Well, I mean the law in the case of homo­sex­u­al­i­ty was real­ly kind of fol­low­ing pop­u­lar cul­ture and not the oth­er way around. So there was a mas­sive shift in pop­u­lar cul­ture, prob­a­bly start­ed with TV shows hav­ing a lot of gay and les­bian peo­ple who were open, and that kind of seep­ing into the pub­lic con­scious­ness and becom­ing an okay thing. And then the law kind of came after­wards.

In this case… So, I just saw the doc­u­men­tary Untouchable that pre­miered at Tribeca, which is about this issue and how the legal sys­tem deals with it. And it was shock­ing to see how—I think they were look­ing at the case of Florida, but… If you throw the word pedophil­ia” into any type of pol­i­cy or legal debate, all the politi­cians are imme­di­ate­ly like, Oh, this is a law that’s going to crack down pedophil­ia? I have to vote for it.” And there’s no way that they can have any sort of con­ver­sa­tion about any of the­se things because it’s such a… The top­ic just rais­es—under­stand­ably rais­es so many emo­tions in peo­ple that there’s no ratio­nal con­ver­sa­tion to be had. 

And I was shocked when I was doing some online read­ing for this pan­el at how peo­ple who had writ­ten New York Times op-eds about per­haps new meth­ods of treat­ing this, they were getting—like, there are YouTube videos about them where peo­ple are say­ing that they should be slaugh­tered and what­not. Just for sug­gest­ing that this could pos­si­bly be an ill­ness rather than a moral fail­ing. So it’s very hard and I think the social con­ver­sa­tion has to hap­pen before the legal con­ver­sa­tion.

Zuckerman: Do you think there’s some­thing in German soci­ety, which you know at least some­thing about, that is dif­fer­ent in sort of under­stand­ing— And just to be clear, in my pre­vi­ous ques­tion I was not in any way try­ing to sug­gest the med­ical­iza­tion of homo­sex­u­al­i­ty as a prob­lem, nor was I try­ing to sug­gest the nor­mal­iza­tion of pedophil­ia. What I was try­ing to sug­gest was there are shifts where we bring some­thing out of a moral­ly unac­cept­able ter­ri­to­ry and then deal with it as a dif­fer­ent issue. For instance deal­ing with it as a med­ical issue.

It sounds like Germany around pedophil­ia has fig­ured out how to make a shift into deal­ing with this as a med­ical and psy­cho­log­i­cal con­di­tion. And you’ve just point­ed out, in the US we’re will­ing to pass laws that lit­er­al­ly make it impos­si­ble for peo­ple con­vict­ed of child sex crimes to live with­in a state. They’re actu­al­ly con­strain­ing phys­i­cal space in which sex offend­ers can live so nar­row­ly that there are huge swaths of for instance the state of Florida where peo­ple can’t legal­ly live. How does that shift take place?

Darling: Well, I feel like con­ti­nen­tal Europe gen­er­al­ly has a very dif­fer­ent atti­tude towards any­thing sex­u­al, real­ly. They’re less Puritan than American soci­ety. I mean the Germans in par­tic­u­lar have always been very prac­ti­cal about this sort of thing. And for exam­ple, I believe you had some of the German gov­ern­ment vis­it­ing your lab one day, and they were from the Green Party. And they want­ed to instate I think a flat tax on down­load­ing files from the Internet, and just get rid of copy­right law, and just tax peo­ple on what they down­load.

And I was like, Well, how does pornog­ra­phy fit into that?” And they didn’t bat an eye­lid. They were like, Of course that,” and they explained how it would work, and they were like, Yes, that’s like any oth­er file.” I just couldn’t imag­ine hav­ing that con­ver­sa­tion with politi­cians in the United States. So I just feel like European cul­ture is a lit­tle bit more you know…less up in arms and screamy about this top­ic, gen­er­al­ly.

Zuckerman: Ron, you were end­ing your remarks with basi­cal­ly the out­li­nes of a research agen­da. You are a roboti­cist. You are a robot ethi­cist. What’s stop­ping you?

Arkin: Funding. That’s the pri­ma­ry ques­tion. Actually, the first time I raised the top­ic of pedophiles being treat­ed as methadone was may­be ten years ago. I can even remem­ber the meet­ing I was at. But of course the press was present there as well, and that got arti­cles of course because that’s what the press does. And hope­ful­ly we won’t be quite as sen­sa­tion­al­is­tic as an after­math of this entire meet­ing as well. 

But I did get an email from a social work­er who had offered to me twen­ty or thirty—I can’t remem­ber the number—human sub­jects. Sex offend­ers that they were work­ing with. And they said, Here are some peo­ple that we can provide for the­se stud­ies.” And you know, I just had to wist­ful­ly smile and say, Okay. Where am I going to get those resources from?” Do I want the equiv­a­lent of the Golden Fleece Award in the National Science Foundation or NIH—if they did fund me—to have the sen­a­tors come out and parade this research as robots for sex? You know, that’s the end of that dis­cus­sion as well.

The only hope, I would con­tend, are foun­da­tions. Foundations are one pos­si­bil­i­ty. And there was a well-known foun­da­tion which I will not name here who I had a cham­pi­on at, who dis­cussed a pro­pos­al I had. And this wasn’t even a con­crete pro­pos­al to do the research. This was just try­ing to deal with eth­i­cal guide­li­nes and like. And they evi­dent­ly had—based on what my cham­pi­on told me—had dis­cus­sions of this and oth­ers over a peri­od of two days, and noth­ing came from that. So if it’s not from foun­da­tions, I hon­est­ly don’t know where the fund­ing is going to come from.

Zuckerman: Christina, you’ve had the oppor­tu­ni­ty to talk to peo­ple who are doing ther­a­py in this space who are real­ly mak­ing the­se sort of inter­ven­tions to try to fig­ure out whether para­phil­ias are treat­able, whether peo­ple can get help with their urges. What are people’s moti­va­tions for doing this work? Clearly this is work that’s incred­i­bly dif­fi­cult. There’s huge bar­ri­ers asso­ci­at­ed with it. There’s enor­mous social stig­ma asso­ci­at­ed with it. Do you have a sense for who the peo­ple who are doing this work are, and to what extent they’re able to com­mu­ni­cate this work and per­haps start work­ing on norm shift on whether there are ways that we can deal with the­se issues as a dis­ease rather than moral fail­ing?

Couch: I don’t know that the land­scape of the research com­ing out is big enough to draw any type of gen­er­al­iza­tions. I mean, as far as I know, I only know of two researchers that are using vir­tu­al real­i­ty in any­thing deal­ing with this. And may­be that land­scape is big­ger than my scope of knowl­edge, but it is small to begin with. And so it’s tough to draw any sort of gen­er­al­iza­tions about who the peo­ple are who are research­ing, or what chal­lenges they’re fac­ing, because the field is tiny. So I don’t know how to answer that, unfor­tu­nate­ly.

Zuckerman: Yeah. In talk­ing with the two that you’ve worked on, is there a back­sto­ry to how they got involved with this work?

Couch: I’m not sure. I’m not sure what Dr. Renaud’s back­sto­ry is. I know that he had been study­ing sex offend­ers for years pri­or to using vir­tu­al real­i­ty. I real­ly think that for him at least, the prob­lem of not being able to get usable data was forc­ing him to look for any oth­er means of find­ing it. So, I’m not sure.

Zuckerman: So, I want to open the mics. so if any­one feels like ask­ing a ques­tion please come on up.

Kate, I just want to put one more ques­tion to you, because I know that in many ways you find your­self sort of tak­ing on the­se issues as they’re imme­di­ate­ly sort of emerg­ing in the space. Dr. Arkin put a num­ber of pos­si­ble issues on the table that hap­pen around inti­mate robot­ics. What do you see as the key research ques­tions that’re not nec­es­sar­i­ly around pedophil­ia or para­phil­ias? As an active researcher in this space, what do you find your­self sort of look­ing at around the ques­tions of inti­mate robot­ics and the­se sort of col­li­sions, as you described it? What do you pre­dict need­ing research in that space?

Darling: I mean, my main research inter­est is how do our inter­ac­tions with robots affect our inter­ac­tions with humans. And I’m very much a fan of the harm prin­ci­ple, where if our inter­ac­tions with robots end up lead­ing to harm­ful inter­ac­tions with oth­er humans, then that’s a bad thing. But we also have no idea whether any of our inter­ac­tions with robots are going to lead to any of the con­se­quences that peo­ple are con­cerned about. So I think that’s incred­i­bly impor­tant to study in inti­mate robot­ics in par­tic­u­lar. And…what was the oth­er part of your ques­tion?

Zuckerman: It was real­ly that ques­tion of, as an exper­i­men­tal­ist in this field, as some­one who’s sort of look­ing at design­ing research in this space, are there things that you’re think­ing about study­ing around this? Are there things that you know peo­ple are active­ly study­ing around inti­mate robot­ics that’re going to help us answer some of those ques­tions? Whether it is ques­tions about harm or whether it’s ques­tions about how human rela­tion­ships are trans­formed? I don’t know if you want to talk about any of your robot harm research with­in this, but…

Darling: I mean, our robot harm research was look­ing at vio­lent behav­ior towards robots. And basi­cal­ly we’ve only got­ten to the point where again, we can observe the behav­ior, we can mea­sure the behav­ior, but we don’t know whether inter­act­ing with robots changes your behav­ior towards peo­ple. And I think that’s real­ly the key ques­tion. It’s a very dif­fi­cult ques­tion to research. And par­tic­u­lar­ly in the area of inti­mate robot­ics, with no fund­ing and the social stig­ma, I’m wor­ried that it won’t be addressed at all. And I would be inter­est­ed in doing it, but again like Ron said. I mean he’s a big name in social robot­ics, he can’t get the fund­ing to do it. How are any of us going to?

Zuckerman: So, we’re going to go to a ques­tion first from the mic in the mid­dle. Let let me just say some­thing that I prob­a­bly should’ve said ear­lier in this con­fer­ence. It’s some­thing that I like to say at aca­d­e­mic con­fer­ences. Academics in many cas­es have for­got­ten what a ques­tion is. A ques­tion is not a state­ment, it is also not a speech. It is an inter­rog­a­tive. You can tell that it’s a ques­tion because usu­al­ly someone’s voice ris­es at the end of it?

And if you have a test of whether this is a ques­tion or not, let me first say that This is what I think. What do you think of what I think?” is not a ques­tion. A ques­tion is some­thing that some­one on this pan­el in the­o­ry could give a nov­el answer to. So with that in mind, if you would intro­duce your­self and put for­ward a ques­tion, that would be great.

Sheila Hayman: Well, that was a bit daunt­ing.

Zuckerman: Not you specif­i­cal­ly.

Hayman: I’m Sheila Hayman. And in the past three weeks, I’ve had to get used apol­o­giz­ing for being British. I would just like to say in this con­text that I shall be cam­paign­ing for a return to absolute monar­chy on the basis that the Queen is the only per­son with a track record, the author­i­ty, and the pub­lic trust to actu­al­ly repair the dam­age that’s been done. Thank you.

So, in defense of con­ti­nen­tal Europe and its cul­ture, I have a bit of expe­ri­ence of the Quakers’ work in this field. As you know, the Quakers were some of the first peo­ple to start vis­it­ing peo­ple in pris­on, and they’ve also been work­ing with sex offend­ers. Because one of the things that wor­ries me (and this will become a ques­tion, don’t wor­ry) about the the direc­tion of this con­ver­sa­tion is that all the­se tech­nolo­gies seem to me to be fur­ther seques­ter­ing and iso­lat­ing the sex offend­ers from human soci­ety. And that sure­ly, as you said at the begin­ning, is some­thing that they’re try­ing very hard to get over. They want to be inte­grat­ed with our soci­ety. They want to be part of it. And so my ques­tion is, do you think that it is pos­si­ble in this coun­try to propose—I think you sort of start­ed to answer it—a sys­tem like that, where­by there are groups of peo­ple who are actu­al­ly vol­un­tar­i­ly engaged with pedophiles and sex offend­ers on the basis that they are humans too, and that we shouldn’t treat them even worse, nec­es­sar­i­ly, that we treat vio­lent crim­i­nals?

Zuckerman: Terrific. Thank you. Christina, do you want to try that one?

Couch: Sure. I mean, I know that there are cer­tain places in the coun­try that are sort of begin­ning to rethink things like sex offend­er reg­istry and hous­ing. A sto­ry just came out yes­ter­day about Connecticut, I think, has a task force specif­i­cal­ly devot­ed to that? So I mean, there are some options there, and unfor­tu­nate­ly I am in no way pre­pared to give any sort of pre­scrip­tive answer or say this is right or this is wrong. But at least some peo­ple are begin­ning to look into it. And I think that even that is some­what of a step for fig­ur­ing out the best way to deal with this seg­ment of the pop­u­la­tion.

Zuckerman: Ron? Or Kate.

Arkin: Yeah, sure. As I men­tioned, I’m pri­mar­i­ly con­cerned with the vic­tims as opposed to the offend­ers in this par­tic­u­lar case. But if you take the methadone exam­ple, if we could use it as a man­age­ment tool where oth­er human adjunct ther­a­pies could be put in place to do exact­ly what you say, that might be appro­pri­ate. I don’t believe that this is a cure-all or panacea for rein­te­grat­ing sex offend­ers into soci­ety. That’s a very com­plex prob­lem and it also deals with the stig­ma that you folks were refer­ring to, as well. But I do believe it can play a posi­ti— This is a hypoth­e­sis again. I believe the hypoth­e­sis that it can play a pos­i­tive role needs to be under­stood, and at least in the man­age­ment of the…if it is a dis­ease, the dis­ease.

Couch: And—sorry I just want­ed to jump right back in. As far as inte­gra­tion, whether that’s a good idea, the best meth­ods of doing that, etc., etc., we real­ly can’t talk about that until we know more about this seg­ment. So that seems to me to be a ques­tion that is sev­er­al steps away. The data is scarce. So that’s an impor­tant thing.

Darling: And I’m also con­cerned because the peo­ple who are being vis­it­ed have already been con­vict­ed of a sex crime, and that’s actu­al­ly a very small per­cent­age of the entire pop­u­la­tion of poten­tial sex offend­ers or peo­ple who have the­se urges. And right now we do have the prob­lem that the­se peo­ple have a lot of trou­ble com­ing for­ward and even con­fid­ing in any­one at all, because all con­fi­den­tial­i­ty is waived in their case because of the report­ing require­ments. So, while I love the idea that groups are form­ing to help the­se peo­ple, it’s not enough. We need legal changes, and I think if we can help with tech­nol­o­gy as well, that’s not a bad thing.

Zuckerman: Can we go to Willow for our next ques­tion?

Willow Brugh: Hi. My name is Willow Brugh. I’m an affil­i­ate at the Center for Civic Media, among oth­er things. One of my ques­tions has to do with…you’re doing a lot of a lack of data and a lack of research and oth­er things, and this is also the most aca­d­e­mic pan­el that we’ve had so far. And so I’m won­der­ing if by open­ing up sex research to a more cit­i­zen sci­ence approach in the way that the pre­vi­ous pan­els have had, the­se out­lier cas­es that you’re speak­ing of where we’re also lack­ing data, we might catch more that way, and are there any efforts to democ­ra­tize sex research in the same way that the­se oth­er fields have?

Zuckerman: Ron, may­be do you…?


Yeah. Well, I am an aca­d­e­mic so I’ll take par­tial cred­it for that. I believe that this needs to be stud­ied in whichev­er way and what­ev­er way pos­si­ble. Citizen sci­ence is fine as long as it is done in a scientific—a man­ner where we can get a deep­er under­stand­ing of the prob­lems. You could do crowd­sourcing I guess as well, or oth­er strate­gies to be able to try and engage a broad­er com­mu­ni­ty. But this does need strict­ly con­trolled sci­en­tific eval­u­a­tion, with IRB boards and all the­se oth­er things, at least in my mind, to get reli­able data. As we said, we couldn’t even get accu­rate recidi­vism rates, and how hard could that pos­si­bly be? From 10 to 45 to 50%, the num­bers were all over the place. And that’s extreme­ly frus­trat­ing. Because of the dearth of data that you were refer­ring to. [motion­ing toward Christina Couch]

So, I applaud any­one who is try­ing to move for­ward, in any venue pos­si­ble, in any coun­try pos­si­ble, an under­stand­ing of this par­tic­u­lar issue proac­tive­ly. And not just for the pedophiles. Like I said, I’m con­cerned also for broad­er seg­ments of our soci­ety, and oth­er soci­eties, that will be affect­ed by the tech­nol­o­gy that is com­ing down the pike. We need to under­stand that. That might be eas­ier to do than the the sex­u­al deviant (as so-called) research, which some may view all of this as sex­u­al deviance if you’re engag­ing with machi­nes, for exam­ple.

Couch: Oh, it’s worth men­tion­ing that vir­tu­al real­i­ty is also being used to study and treat peo­ple who are vic­tims of sex­u­al trau­ma, as well. So this is not a one-way street. I know that the University California, for exam­ple, is putting together—they are try­ing to build… (I’m going to butcher this.) They’re try­ing to build a vir­tu­al real­i­ty sim­u­la­tion to treat PTSD suf­fered by vic­tims of sex­u­al assault. And so when we talk about ampli­fy­ing research meth­ods, it’s not just for offend­ers. Those types of appli­ca­tions can also in some cas­es be used to actu­al­ly help vic­tims as well.

Zuckerman: So I want to make sure that every­one who’s stand­ing up gets a chance to ask a ques­tion. And so due to time con­straints, what I’m going to do is just take the next three ques­tions. We’re going to do our best to answer them to the best that we can. So we’ll go mid­dle, side of the room, and then we’ll end with Viktoria.

Audience 3: So, you all seem to agree that a lack of fund­ing and too much stig­ma pre­vents good sci­ence on this? I guess my ques­tion is let’s say there was no stig­ma and there was a sur­plus of fund­ing. What would the sci­ence look like? So you sug­gest­ed strict­ly sci­en­tific con­trolled exper­i­ments. But this doesn’t seem to get at the sorts of ques­tions that Ethan sort of allud­ed to at the very begin­ning of how the cul­ture changes in the medi­um and very long term, and the may­be accep­tance or lack of accep­tance and how the­se things nor­mal­ize, and how it changes the future of the­se sorts para­phil­ias.

Zuckerman: Great. So the ques­tion there is both what would a con­crete research agen­da look like, and how would we make a move around this nor­ma­tive ques­tion of treat­ing para­phil­ias as dis­ease rather than as moral fail­ing? Let’s go over here.

Audience 4: So I think there’s some research that indi­cates that pornog­ra­phy has changed expec­ta­tions of sex. And so if and when the­se child sex robots are rolled out—and you say it’s hap­pen­ing soon­er than we think it is—who gets to decide whether you can have child sex robot as ther­a­py, and who gets to decide whether you have it as enter­tain­ment? And so how will this be reg­u­lat­ed?

Zuckerman: Right. Terrific. So ques­tions about the long-term effects of pornog­ra­phy on sex­u­al­i­ty. And if this is a ther­a­peu­tic tech­nol­o­gy, what’s the line between ther­a­peu­tic and enter­tain­ment tech­nolo­gies. Viktoria.

Viktoria Modesta: Hi. I’m Viktoria Modesta. I’m one of the Director’s Fellows here. I’m very very inter­est­ed in the whole con­cept of sex­u­al iden­ti­ty, espe­cial­ly in areas where it’s kind of con­sid­ered slight­ly inap­pro­pri­ate, like for exam­ple dis­abil­i­ty and sex­u­al­i­ty. It’s just some­thing you don’t real­ly think about. I’m very neu­tral on this, but just look­ing at the idea of sex­u­al deviance and how much how much cor­re­la­tion or research has been done to deter­mine whether some­thing like pedophil­ia is extreme­ly dif­fer­ent from all the oth­er dif­fer­ent sex­u­al deviances we have in soci­ety? You know, BDSM, and obvi­ous­ly up until recent­ly even being attract­ed to the oppo­site sex, or bes­tial­i­ty, or all of those range of things that are con­sid­ered unnat­u­ral,” how much link has there been made between those? 

And just last­ly, if we are look­ing at poten­tial­ly chang­ing unwant­ed behav­ior that humans are kind of express­ing, is it pos­si­ble to cross-examine some­thing like vio­lence and the effects of vir­tu­al real­i­ty or games that have the effect on peo­ple with extreme vio­lence? You know, is it pos­si­bly con­nect­ed to just look at you know, is it real­ly pos­si­ble to cure some­one? Is it a dis­ease or is it just a very unfor­tu­nate nat­u­ral deviance that unfor­tu­nate­ly doesn’t fit with a mod­ern soci­ety?

Zuckerman: So, some rather deep ques­tions there about what the very nature of para­phil­ias are. Whether there’s a con­tin­u­um from more social­ly accept­able behav­ior like BDSM into more vio­lent sex­u­al­i­ty. Questions about in a world where we had the mon­ey and the abil­i­ty to have a research agen­da around this, what is it that we would actu­al­ly work on? How would we work on this ques­tion of dis­ease ver­sus moral fail­ing, if in fact this turns out to be a dis­ease rather than just a trait? A very provoca­tive ques­tion about what we believe pornog­ra­phy does to desire. And whether robots that might be usable for ther­a­peu­tic pur­pos­es. Kate, can I ask you may­be to take on the pornog­ra­phy ques­tion first?

Darling: Sure. I mean, a lot of the research on pornog­ra­phy is very dif­fi­cult to eval­u­ate. But the fact is that peo­ple have been doing research and have been try­ing to get at the ques­tion of how pornog­ra­phy, or vio­lent video games for that mat­ter, influ­ence people’s behav­ior. And I think that a lot of this is research that, while we need to be crit­i­cal of it, we can also draw on for the­se pur­pos­es. So I’m basically—I’m answer­ing all three ques­tions at once, I guess. But the method­olo­gies that have been used in in those cas­es we can also apply to look­ing at robot­ics, and VR, which are more phys­i­cal. I do think that we can’t com­plete­ly just com­pare and learn from those find­ings in those areas, because what we’re talk­ing about is some­thing that’s much more phys­i­cal, and were very phys­i­cal crea­tures. And so that might actu­al­ly bring it to a new lev­el and have dif­fer­ent effects than some­thing that’s just on a screen like pornog­ra­phy or a video game. But draw­ing on that body of research is def­i­nite­ly the direc­tion in which this would go as a research agen­da.

Zuckerman: Christina, could I get you to weigh in on any of those ques­tion?

Couch: Sure. The ques­tion regard­ing using tech­nol­o­gy to treat this type of issue? I think that you [ges­tur­ing toward audi­ence] had asked what the research is in terms of pedophil­ia ver­sus bes­tial­i­ty or oth­er forms of para­phil­ia. And, I don’t know, to be hon­est. I’m not a sex­u­al­i­ty researcher. I’m not equipped to com­ment on that speci­fic thing.

But as far as when we look at tech­nol­o­gy, one thing that has emerged in the twenty-plus years that we’ve been look­ing into study vir­tu­al real­i­ty is that it can influ­ence behav­ior. There’s about twen­ty years worth of research on using vir­tu­al real­i­ty to treat post-traumatic stress dis­or­der. For a cer­tain seg­ment of peo­ple that have that, using vir­tu­al real­i­ty can actu­al­ly reduce the symp­toms of PTSD quick­er than tra­di­tion­al ther­a­pies do. 

Virtual real­i­ty has also—there’s at least one study that shows that vir­tu­al real­i­ty can be used to reduce uncon­scious racial bias. I did a big project last year on racial bias, and uncon­scious racial bias is an incred­i­bly dif­fi­cult thing to break, even tem­porar­i­ly.

So, the research seems to be there in terms of can some­thing like vir­tu­al real­i­ty be used to change behav­ior. Or at least to influ­ence how we think about behav­ior. So I don’t think it’s tremen­dous­ly crazy to think that under cer­tain con­texts that may­be you could use this type of tech­nol­o­gy to actu­al­ly change behav­ior with­in pedophiles. It’s cer­tain­ly a thing that is worth look­ing into.

Zuckerman: Ron, I’m won­der­ing if I can get you, specif­i­cal­ly, because you made this asser­tion which I think is very inter­est­ing that this is com­ing whether we like it or not, to wrestle with this ques­tion of robots for ther­a­py, robots for plea­sure. If we do start explor­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty of what we might call the methadone the­o­ry, do we end up nor­mal­iz­ing sex­u­al­i­ty with child robots? Where does that push us? Where does that take us?

Arkin: Okay. Let me first answer two of the ques­tions. I apol­o­gize to the third ques­tion­er, because I’m not sure I’m capa­ble of talk­ing about the fun­da­men­tal dif­fer­ences with pedophil­ia and oth­ers.

Regarding sci­en­tific method­olo­gies, the human research inter­ac­tion com­mu­ni­ty has almost become obsessed with data gath­er­ing and data col­lec­tion, to the point where some peo­ple think they’ve gone a lit­tle too far and not accept­ing pub­li­ca­tion to do not have extreme­ly detailed, valid sci­en­tific meth­ods to be able to look at and tease out small pieces of inter­ac­tions which even­tu­al­ly go to both short-term stud­ies and long-term stud­ies. Longitudinal stud­ies as they’re referred to. So I’m con­fi­dent method­olo­gies could be done which would not hap­pen all at once, you know. There’s a series of pro­gres­sion of sci­en­tific exper­i­ments by a larg­er com­mu­ni­ty which would need to be under­tak­en to get that kind of data.

In regard to the sec­ond ques­tion, who would tell, who would get those sys­tems? To my mind, it should be physi­cians and/or courts that would say that this indi­vid­u­al is a threat to soci­ety, or has been shown to be a threat to soci­ety, and as such this is an appro­pri­ate treat­ment for that par­tic­u­lar indi­vid­u­al, whether to bring them back or to pro­tect soci­ety as a whole. My con­cern, though, is very much relat­ed to that. I don’t like hear­ing about the­se being used for enter­tain­ment. And the one side-effect of mov­ing for­ward with the design of the­se robots is the poten­tial black mar­ket which could be cre­at­ed for their use by indi­vid­u­als. That wor­ries me sig­nif­i­cant­ly, and thus they would have to be a quasi-controlled sub­stance, in a sense, to be able to do this accu­rate­ly. But even then it doesn’t always work.

The issue of nor­mal­iza­tion, as you brought up. How does that change of soci­ety as a whole, and the accep­tance of cer­tain kinds of behav­ior? As you men­tioned, that hap­pens rou­tine­ly in almost every, even non–tech­no­log­i­cal aspects, as we’ve seen. We’ve seen a change with respect to the def­i­n­i­tions of mar­riage. You notice I put up there robot mar­riage is a pos­si­bil­i­ty as well. Are you allowed even­tu­al­ly to mar­ry an arti­fact? The ques­tion of bes­tial­i­ty was brought up as well. Is this crim­i­nal­ized because it’s bes­tial­i­ty? I have spent my entire career study­ing ani­mal behav­ior, includ­ing humans, in a vari­ety of dif­fer­ent cir­cum­stances. And the notion of study­ing sex­u­al deviance and actu­al nor­mal humans inter­act­ing with the­se things can provide the basis for a deep­er under­stand­ing of how that oper­ates, and then work­ing in con­junc­tion in a tru­ly inter­dis­ci­pli­nary effort with soci­ol­o­gists and anthro­pol­o­gists and the like as well, to get a deep­er under­stand­ing of the poten­tial soci­etal effects is the only effec­tive way to be able to come to answers to that. 

Zuckerman: So, thank you so much. I real­ly want to give an extra spe­cial thanks to my pan­elists. This is not an easy pan­el for any­one to come up and have this con­ver­sa­tion for an hour or so. Really appre­ci­ate the qual­i­ty of the ques­tions, the qual­i­ty of atten­tion from the crowd, in par­tic­u­lar the con­tri­bu­tions from the folks here on stage. 

Let me just check very quick­ly… Great, I’m still employed by MIT. Okay. Just need­ed to check in on that very very quick­ly.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.