|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roxxxy article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from Roxxxy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 23 January 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know||
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
- WP:AfD is the correct venue. 20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not a robot, it's a talking doll.
From everything I've read, I don't think it can move, and thus is not a robot, to quote robot "simply being anthropomorphic is not a sufficient criterion for something to be called a robot." The robot page has an extensive section on what constitutes being a robot, and this talking doll simply doesn't make the cut.
My apologies if I'm wrong about this. but I get the impression from the vague language in the articles I've been reading that you can bend it, but that it does not move on its own.
Three out of the first 3 references on this page use the term "doll" as well as "robot". I'm changing the language to "doll" on this page. If you can find some reference to it being able to power its own movement, feel free to revert my edit. JasonWoof (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, edit done. - Jason
P.S. I don't care if the media calls it a robot. The media will call anything a robot. Wikipedia has extensive documentation on what constitutes a robot, and unless it can move itself, it isn't one. JasonWoof (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Read WP:RS. It is a robot according to Wikipedia policy WP:RS. --Defender of torch (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I just read WP:RS and it doesn't say anything about using the same terminology as the news media. I'm not saying that the news and other media in the citations are wrong, but I think it's clear that they are using a different definition of the word "robot" than wikipedia does. For consistency, and to avoid confusion, I think it is important that we use words they way they are defined in this encyclopedia. JasonWoof (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Defender of torch: I appreciate your comment here, but I do not feel that you have presented a convincing argument. Please elaborate on your position. In particular I'd like to know: 1) If you (personally) had not heard a Roxxxy described, and you were shown one, do you think you would call it a robot? 2) Do you think it qualifies as a robot by the criteria laid out in robot?, 3) do you think the general population would call it a robot if you showed it to them (and they weren't prompted with the word from the media or you)? 4) (assuming you agree with me on #2) why do you think it's better to use the terminology from the media instead of the definition from the robot page? Thank you, JasonWoof (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- JasonWoof, according to the robot article, "There is no consensus on which machines qualify as robots, but there is general agreement among experts and the public that robots tend to do some or all of the following: move around, operate a mechanical limb, sense and manipulate their environment, and exhibit intelligent behavior, especially behavior which mimics humans or other animals." [emphasis added] — it is not just about ability to physically move— intelligent behavior also counts. I think the behavior exhibited by roxxxy is enough for it to qualify as a robot by Wikipedia's definition.
- Anyway, most of the criteria and definition part of the Wikipedia article robot is unsourced - and we are obviously supposed to adhere to RS (that is the media, which is calling roxxxy a robot) while writing articles, rather than poorly sourced wiki articles. --Zvn (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- thank you Zvn! I am able to see more of my own bias now. I am with you for the most part, except for the "manipulate their environment" part. Afaict roxxxy doesn't. Which is the main reason I think it's not a robot. If I have a laptop running dictation software, and I send that text to ELIZA and send the output of that to a speech synthesizer... you can have a conversation with it, but I don't think that's a robot, not even if I shove said laptop into a big doll. Guess I'm just stuck on my own definition of robot, which is "machine capable of autonomous movement". The robot page mostly agrees, but has other criteria too, like mimicking mammals. JasonWoof (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The thing is called a "sex robot" enough times in enough sources that this discussion is mostly unnecessary, because it is known as a sex robot and that's what we are basing this encyclopedic article on. That there are "requirements" for a thing to be known as a robot in a different article here is not in question, but it's barely relevant. Some may disagree that it actually is a robot, but it is certainly appropriate to call it a sex robot in this article.12:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- If I take the engine, gearbox, electronics and wheels off my car it is still a car. It is an immobile, non powered car lacking electrical systems but we would still call it a car. Robots come in many varieties but to decribe a robot as having no computational capacity or movement would be probably incorrect. It would be fine toe write the article using "sex robot" as this implies it is called that and is not necessarily a robot. Chaos is sitting in his "car" implies that it is not really a car as it has no engine wheels etc. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
According to the maker's website, it can actually move, albeit in a very limited way relevant to its specialized purpose- the arms and legs don't move independently, but the relevant orifices do. The movement there is apparently quite sophisticated. It is an interesting question whether movement that only affects objects that have been inserted into the device (and possibly mouth movement while conversing- I don't know if the mouth is used that way) constitutes enough movement to shift it from "doll" to "robot", but it does make it a question rather than an obvious result that it should be called a doll. Maybe an animatronic? Nightsmaiden (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it's a brochure?
Is this a WKP article or a promotional flyer for this sex doll? Serious NPOV issues. Too many references to purchase and customers and available options, and no real technical details, or anything in the way of a rounded view: e.g.
- Power supply
- Basic materials and components
- Can Roxxxy stand unsupported?
- Is the mechanical heart mentioned actually anything of the sort, or just a simple fluid pump?
- Is it really a robot - for example can it synthesise sentences?
- Does the doll operate discretely, or must it be permanently interfaced with a computer?
- If independent, what processing power, how much memory and storage?
In terms of an encyclopedic entry, I'm sure we can do better than
According to the website of the company, Roxxxy is not limited to sexual uses and "can carry on a discussion and expresses her love to you and be your loving friend. She can talk to you, listen to you and feel your touch."
I'll have a go when I've had a sort through the references. I have some suspicions about how far this object counts as 'intelligent', so I'm looking for some comment from reputable AI sources. I'm not very hopeful, so far most of the links appear to be to be mainstream media outlets treating the release of Roxxxy for sale as a novelty news item. Even the PC Mag news item is noticeably light-hearted rather than serious or technically informative. Centrepull (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)