Timeline for Is there a woman named Lilly who is engaged to a robot she built?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:41 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 5, 2017 at 15:19 | vote | accept | Sklivvz | ||
| Dec 29, 2016 at 21:05 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan | Another reason not to believe this without further evidence would be that it's published in the Daily Mail. If I read in the Daily Mail that water is wet, I would re-check my physics textbooks. | |
| Dec 27, 2016 at 19:42 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 3, 2017 at 3:01 | |||||
| Dec 27, 2016 at 16:30 | answer | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 26, 2016 at 21:26 | answer | added | Sakib Arifin | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 26, 2016 at 19:09 | comment | added | Sklivvz | @AE Not everything that's plausible is also true. In fact most interesting claims are also plausible! | |
| Dec 26, 2016 at 19:08 | comment | added | Sklivvz | @user5341 I am not making any argument, I am simply stating why I don't necessarily believe this news without further evidence. If I actually had a convincing argument, I wouldn't need to post here! :-) | |
| Dec 26, 2016 at 17:47 | comment | added | A E | The claim that she "says they will marry when human-robot marriage is legalised in France" seems entirely plausible but rather unremarkable. People say all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. Whether or not human-robot marriage will at some time in the future be legalised in France seems outside the scope of this site. | |
| Dec 26, 2016 at 15:44 | comment | added | user5341 | Your argument from incredulity seems based on wrong facts. "because robots currently are little more than mannequins" - not necessarily. One of recent TED talks had examples of empathetic robots that patients admitted to forgetting weren't human after extensive communication. There are sex toy robots. Seems on both emotional and physical level, they are far more than mannequins at this point of technological development. (it's a great question overall though) | |
| Dec 26, 2016 at 15:29 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSkeptic/status/813406281335799808 | ||
| Dec 26, 2016 at 15:06 | history | edited | Sklivvz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 18 characters in body; edited title
|
| Dec 26, 2016 at 5:04 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | Is that the definition? In that case, I would like to publicly announce Gisele Bundchen and I are engaged! More seriously, I believe in most jurisdictions, it is a bilateral (perhaps unenforceable) agreement, making an engagement to a non-person impossible. | |
| Dec 26, 2016 at 3:15 | comment | added | DJClayworth | 'Being engaged' is just a public statement that you intend to marry. Anyone can announce that they intend to marry anyone or anything at all, "once marrying the whatever-it-is becomes legal". Whether the wedding will ever happen is beyond our scope. | |
| Dec 26, 2016 at 2:36 | history | asked | Sklivvz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |