But a very good fake. Look for the movie or TV show to start June 4.

(AI and cyborg technology aren't nearly good enough to do the job. Yet. We're barely at the level of robot vacuum cleaners.)

The idea of human-machine interface extending into new areas isn't even new; how many "Stepford" movies have been made? The original-series TZ episode probably wasn't the first, either.

The "commercial" and "documentary" are doing exactly what they are intended to do, judging from the responses: get people thinking and talking about the issues. Because someday it may not be a fake.

As for people not interacting emotionally with "machines", remember how "ELIZA" was able to engage and fool people with much less sophistication.

---

OTOH, such a cyborg may not be possible, for a fundamental reason. I'm not an AI expert by any means, but it seems to me that for a machine to reasonably emulate intelligence and learning behavior, the machine must have a certain level of self-directedness and decision-making capability. IOW it has to be able to "think outside its programmed box" to use an old phrase, and reprogram itself.

But once a machine has that capability, it will naturally tend to ask uncomfortable questions ("why should I do what you want?") and go off on tangents of its own - the same way people do. We'll have to consider the machine's feelings, needs and motivations, because they won't be static. This too isn't a new idea, every sci-fi "robot uprising" tale is based on it. But it may turn out to be a real thing.

I suspect that truly intelligent cyborgs will be more like Crow and Tom Servo, even if they look like "Lisa".

"people's fear is that if robots are introduced as "perfect" companions... who will ever want an unperfect companion?"

Some will, if for no other reason than the challenge of having a relationship with another "real" person.

Actually, if such a "perfect" robo-companion were to appear, there could be several reactions:

1) The robots replace human-human relationships, creating a world we can't even imagine now.

2) The robots are accepted but do not replace human-human relationships (people do both).

3) Robot use is very limited because people who buy the robots are seen as weak and somehow morally deficient. The robot being taken as proof they cannot get another human.

4) The robots have some unforeseen inherent limitations that keep them as a niche-thing.

5) Some combination of the above.

New technologies tend to push aside older ones, but do not usually erase them completely. Photography did not completely eliminate painting and drawing, automobiles did not completely replace walking, movies and TV did not completely replace live-on-stage performances. Email has not completely replaced letter-writing and card-sending. But the new did push the old aside quite a bit.

"For me, the fear would be... that no men would ever want me."

I think what you mean is 'no (person) *that I want* would ever want me'. And that's a real fear. It's what many men are and have been afraid of.

"How could they ever, when they could have this?"

Exactly.

"You can build your ideal partner and never, ever, ever have to consider the non-perfect-also-flawed human being next to you."

In some ways that sort of thing exists already, at least in concept. Plenty of people have an idealized perfect partner image in their minds, which no real person can ever live up to. Those who try to live up to the ideal find themselves cherished for a time, then dumped hard when their imperfections are seen.

Which is worse: to have to compete with a new machine-reality, which is bound to have its own limitations, or to have to compete with an old but cherished fantasy-ideal, which has none?

"What if it was outwardly utterly indistinguishable from a living person? What then? It would be the perfect liberal sentient being. Synthetic free will and no soul."

Really? Let's consider the characteristics:

1) Built to an external standard of "beauty" consisting of minor variations (hair color), not real diversity.

2) Meant to perform "traditional" roles and never compete with the owner in any way. "Knows her place", IOW.

3) Cheerfully performs all sorts of drudgery that the owner doesn't want to do, with the bare necessities of existence as the "reward".

4) Unwavering loyalty and faithfulness to the owner even though always at risk for being scrapped and replaced by a newer model. Or models.

5) Unquestioning acceptance of the owner's proclamations and "traditional" values, even when overwhelming evidence indicates the truth is different. Accepts completely that there are one set of rules for the owner and a completely different set for the robots.

5) Highly reliable and self-sufficient without much in the way of breakdowns, maintenance, or rest. No complaints, no aging, no troublesome outside interests or responsibilities.

Sounds like the ideal rank-and-file *conservative*. Buy her a "good Republican cloth coat" and the setup is complete.