MC understands the quintessential positive qualities of the robowaifu. There is little to no means of robots actually articulating the complex nuances that is human emotion, nor are their any feasible advantages for said robots to have them. Realistically the application of emotion and personality just dips further and further into the uncanny valley, which would introduce various sources of risk while reducing the quality assurance and sustainability of the product. This is simply why they are perfect, the modern golem; otherwise it would just be a humanoid slave (with a chance to become self aware and ask unnecessary questions) which is just offputting at best. I suspect that the devs and engineers were put to such useless tasks by some overpaid project manager that puts his own interests ahead of the company which will damage the image and brand of said company in the future. Of course this is also assuming this sort of thing is cannon and I'm not just pointlessly overanalysing a doujin with all the free time I have. But realistically why bother introducing a bot to emotions in the first place? It's more trouble than it's worth and unnecessarily introduces ethical and philosophical questions towards use, distribution and disposal of the product that performs way beyond its original purpose. If you want something with emotions that badly, just find a human.
Hmm. That makes sense. It occurs to me, however, that the deployment of behavioral displays suggesting the presence positive human emotions like happiness, affection and lust could valuably increase user attachment to the product and brand. They could also reinforce proper use of and care for the product. Subtle displays of negative emotions like worry and dissatisfaction, meanwhile, could discourage improper use and perhaps even spur upgrade purchases. Nor would there be any reason for the the product to acknowledge whatever differences might exist between such behavioral displays and the ostensible presence of "real emotions" in humans. My point is that providing the
user experience of "a robot with emotions" would not necessarily entail the unpredictability and risk associated with human emotionality. It's a question of semantics: what are emotions? Are they the unit-individual's subjective perception ("feeling") of certain states ("feelings") that exist only within itself? Or are they the mechanisms by which those states are triggered, processed and expressed? If the former, then they are, in themselves, perceptible only to the individual and thus of no concern to us. Absent any outward emotional expression, a robot experiencing emotion is exactly the same, from a performance standpoint, as a robot experiencing none. But if we define emotions instead by their triggers and expressions - the outward aspects that a user might actually perceive - then they become a controllable set of product behaviors like any other. And besides, there's no scientific basis for considering emotions defined and generated in this manner as less "real" than what they emulate. We can't measure, perceive or even clearly explain the "feeling of feelings" in humans, after all. We can only analyze external indicators like electrochemistry, gross behavior, and other physical indicators (facial expression & tone of voice, body posture, heartbeat & breathing, pupillary dilation, blush response, etc.). Which is to say that fake can not only be just as good, it may be just as
real. Look ma, no paragraph brakes