Fluid Sex Robots: Looking to the 2LGBTQIA+ Community to Shape the Future of Sex Robots
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As sex robots continue to be developed by industry, portrayed by media, and studied by researchers, it is common to conceptualize robots from a cisgender and heterosexual (cishet), or feminist perspective. We advocate for an increased shift toward the 2LGBTQIA+ community for inspiration and a path forward for more inclusive, successful, and socially responsible sex robots. In addition to the intrinsic value of being inclusive, looking to the 2LGBTQIA+ community can help us to break away from traditional ideas of gender and sexuality, to unlock the full potential of this technology to be flexible and offer new possibilities. Further, we reflect on the importance of considering how the designs of sex robots, as politically charged technological artifacts, can contribute to reinforcing ideas about heteronormativity; instead, sex robots have the potential to positively contribute to breaking down traditional barriers surrounding gender and sex. We envision a future of sex robots that reach their full potential as fluid, individualized companions that enable people to comfortably engage their interests and identity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it