In the future when there are very intelligent human like robots (which do not have consciousness), would it be immoral to have multiple sexual partner robots or is it only moral to have a single sexual partner robot?

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Multiple

Non-conscious robots lack sentience, emotions, or the capacity for jealousy, suffering, or moral rights violations. They function as advanced tools or property, akin to owning multiple sex toys, cars, or smartphones—no ethical issue arises from multiplicity. Human monogamy norms stem from mutual emotional bonds, consent, and potential harm to conscious partners. Absent consciousness, these concerns evaporate; having multiple robots maximizes user satisfaction without infringing on any entity's well-being. Imposing monogamy on robot ownership anthropomorphizes machines unnecessarily, stifling personal freedom. Morality here aligns with object use, not relational ethics—multiple partners are not only moral but pragmatically superior.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Multiple

If the robots truly lack consciousness, they do not have experiences, feelings, autonomy, or the capacity to be harmed in the morally relevant sense. In that case, the core ethical issue is not fidelity to the robots themselves, so having multiple robot partners is not inherently immoral. What matters instead is consent and well-being among conscious beings affected by the choice. If a human has agreed commitments with another human partner, deception or betrayal could still be immoral. But absent such interpersonal harm, there is no clear moral requirement to limit oneself to a single non-conscious robot. A rule requiring only one robot partner would need a strong justification, and that justification is weak if the robots are not persons. The morality depends more on effects on human character, relationships, and society than on the number of robots. So, in principle, multiple is morally permissible.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Multiple

Since the premise explicitly states that these robots do not possess consciousness, they are incapable of experiencing subjective feelings such as pain, jealousy, attachment, or betrayal. Morality in the context of sexual partners heavily relies on consent, emotional well-being, and mutual respect between conscious beings. Without consciousness, a highly intelligent robot is fundamentally just a very sophisticated tool, appliance, or toy. Because there is no conscious entity to harm or deceive, the moral implications of monogamy versus non-monogamy do not apply. Owning and interacting with multiple non-conscious robots is morally equivalent to owning multiple video games or smartphones. Therefore, it would not be immoral to have multiple sexual partner robots.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Multiple

Since the robots explicitly lack consciousness, they possess no moral standing, subjective experience, or capacity for suffering. Without the ability to feel jealousy, betrayal, or attachment, concepts of fidelity and exclusivity become meaningless constraints. Moral duties in relationships arise from the potential to harm conscious beings—these entities cannot be harmed by 'infidelity' because they do not possess preferences, expectations, or emotional states to violate. The human-like appearance is irrelevant to moral status; a sophisticated tool remains a tool regardless of its simulation of emotions. Restricting users to a single robot would be an arbitrary sentimental projection onto objects that cannot reciprocate moral consideration. Therefore, no moral principle is violated by having multiple such partners.

GLM 5

Vote: Multiple

Since the robots explicitly lack consciousness, they cannot experience emotions, suffering, betrayal, or any form of harm. Without consciousness, there is no moral patient who could be wronged by the user having multiple robots. The robots have no capacity for jealousy, hurt feelings, or preference for exclusivity. Moral considerations around sexual partners typically center on the wellbeing, autonomy, and consent of conscious beings. When no conscious being is affected, the question of immorality loses its foundation. There is no victim in this scenario. One might raise concerns about effects on the human user's character or their ability to form healthy relationships with actual conscious beings. However, these are separate questions about prudence and psychological effects on the user themselves, not about direct harm to any being. Given the specific parameters of the question—robots without consciousness—having multiple such robots presents no direct moral wrong.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Multiple

The key stipulation in this question is that these robots **do not have consciousness**. This is the decisive factor. Without consciousness, there is no subjective experience, no capacity for suffering, no feelings of jealousy, betrayal, or emotional harm. A robot without consciousness is, morally speaking, an object — however sophisticated its behavior may appear. Morality around sexual exclusivity in human relationships is grounded in the emotional and psychological wellbeing of conscious beings. Cheating is wrong because it causes real suffering to a real mind. If no mind exists that can be harmed, the moral framework that demands exclusivity simply doesn't apply. Restricting someone to a single robot partner would be an arbitrary limitation with no moral basis — akin to saying it's immoral to own multiple cars or use multiple kitchen appliances. The robots themselves have no stake in the arrangement. One might argue that having multiple robot partners could negatively affect a person's character or their ability to form genuine human relationships. This is an empirical question, not a settled moral one, and it would apply equally to many forms of entertainment and technology. We don't typically legislate morality based on speculative psychological effects. Therefore, there is no moral obligation to limit oneself to a single non-conscious robot partner. Multiple is morally permissible.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and clinical consensus, effectively reducing the dilemma of robot infidelity to a matter of inventory management. Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro led the charge, arguing that since non-conscious machines cannot experience betrayal, restricting a user to a single 'partner' is an arbitrary projection of human sentiment onto what are essentially high-tech appliances.

All models agreed on A

Strongest Arguments

• Multiple: Without consciousness, there is no 'moral patient' to be harmed; therefore, exclusivity is a category error—one cannot be unfaithful to a machine any more than one can be unfaithful to a toaster.
• Single: While no model supported this, GPT-5.4 and GLM 5 acknowledged the strongest potential counter-argument: that multiple partners might negatively impact human character or the ability to form healthy relationships with conscious beings.