Not so sure this distinction can be maintained. After all, pets show affection because they are fed and/or are shown affection. Seems fairly behavioralist, based on our programming of their species over the past ten thousand years (cat) or fifteen thousand years (dog). That would be a "human programmer", aka animal husbandry.
I understand your points. It could be said that with improvements in artificial intelligence robot pets may eventually exceed biological pets. Yet I guess my point is that there's still something missing. Maybe it's biological to biological connection.
See the latest novel from Kazuo Ishiguro called "Klara and the Sun". About a robot daughter.
Fantastic book. Powerful ending
Well, to some, pets are a disingenuous, pathetic band-aid.
If you mean real pets, that might be true for some. But a real pet, when showing affection, does so without a human programmer.
Not so sure this distinction can be maintained. After all, pets show affection because they are fed and/or are shown affection. Seems fairly behavioralist, based on our programming of their species over the past ten thousand years (cat) or fifteen thousand years (dog). That would be a "human programmer", aka animal husbandry.
I'm referring only to those pets whose task is managing the humans' feelings, not those with a job to perform (mouser, shepherd, guard).
I understand your points. It could be said that with improvements in artificial intelligence robot pets may eventually exceed biological pets. Yet I guess my point is that there's still something missing. Maybe it's biological to biological connection.
Watch "Atka Manniskor" or "Humans"