this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1873 readers
39 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh, where to start.
Sexy woman coded, perhaps, unless you're saying that women who don't have prominent breasts and what appears to be makeup aren't real women
But this is a drawing of a machine. Machines don't have gender, biological or social or otherwise. Whoever created this image thought, consciously or not, "I'm going to make a picture of a robot, and I'm gonna make it a sexy woman robot." Not just a "woman-coded" humanoid robot - because that can be done without playing heavy on the sexiness, right?
So why? Why make a sexy woman robot? I ask again: Am I supposed to want to fuck it?
Why are you conflating “real”ness with sexiness?
This is actually incorrect. Gender is a social construct. Anything can have gender if (a) society agrees upon it.
You have not proved this.
Again, the image is not particularly sexy. Just having large breast-analogs in the picture doesn’t make it sexy, unless you’re a stereotypical teenage boy.
You have not earned the right to ask these questions.
here's another version of the same sketch
now what could the symbolism here mean, why all these choices
I don't get it. It's like you're saying the sexy robot woman is a representation of seductive futuristic promises of a problematic technology. I don't see how that ties into the article at all.