tiny nibbles hat mich drauf gebracht. Aber wie bricology ganz richtig schreibt: *... but I think we need to stop calling any old thing that's vaguely anthropomorphic and animated a "robot". For example, the "battle bots" on TV are not robots; they're remote-controlled toys. A robot's actions have to be autonomous, not controlled with a joystick. A welder in a car factory is a robot, because it needs no human interaction -- even if it doesn't look anthropomorphic.

Likewise, a video like this -- while somewhat entertaining -- is pretty weak. Those aren't anything like "robots"; they're just animated human simulacra. Why would robots breast-feed their "babies"? Why would there even be robot babies? It's not like their body structures are going to grow as they age. I'd like to see the subject of "robot sex" treated with a bit more imagination than just some artist's posable wooden figures spray-painted silver, thrusting like humans. It's not particularly clever, and it just perpetuates stupid myths about robots.*

Genau das ist der Grund nicht zu robodog etc zu gehen. Oder zu den blöden Körperwelten. Ich brauche das nicht, das sich die Simulakren von der Leinwand oder Mattscheibe so einfach ins dreidimensionale transportieren.