Will machines completely replace all human beings?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:08 pm

The Artful Pauper wrote:The point I was making is that there is a process in place that machines are coming to replace humans, and it will take place if nothing is done about it.

No. Defintely not because that is the point that we were making! You have understood nothing! You have merely bitched.

The Artful Pauper wrote:I made the assertion about defeatism ...

Yes and because of bitching and wrongly judging our statements.

The Artful Pauper wrote:It then appeared from one of James S's responses that I was wrong and admitted that I may have been mistaken in my position.

That is an amusing teenage attempt to be rhetorical.

The following quoted posts are James S Saint's last three responses:

James S Saint wrote:Spoken like a true irreverent teenager.
... clueless.
James S Saint wrote:Could you be any more self-condemning?
Which is really worse, being "self-defeating" or being "self-condemning"?
.. something you can't really ask a self-condemning person.... :lol:
James S Saint wrote:Didn't you just say that "hubris is necessary"?

Yes, James, he meant his own hubris as an irreverent teenager.

James S Saint wrote:"That tire is only flat on one side. The rest of it is fine!??"
"And why worry about that one tire when you have 3 good ones!??"
"The cancer is only in the brain. The rest of the body is doing great. So what are you worried about?


AP, there are only two ways to deal with a problem;
A) face the problem and work out a solution.
B) follow someone else who has faced the problem and worked out a solution.

You have more voice here right now than you will ever have in the rest of the world. You are talking to us directly and interactively. So having such influence, you certainly should be able to change our minds and attitudes. We believe there is a very high probability of a very serious problem to face. You believe the solution is to ignore it and just be positive (apparently). So okay, if you can't change our minds, you certainly can't change the rest of the world.
Make us believe. 8)
..else accept that perhaps you are the already defeated.

And he is already the defeated because he does not respect what we say (cp. irreverent teenager).

The Artful Pauper wrote:It It seems that you are the one who can't stand someone with a differing perspective so you have to compare me to a communist dictator and call all of my assertions bitching.

That should have been the reason for me "to compare" you "with a communist dictator and call all of" your "assertions bitching"? No. That's again your teenage attempt to be rhetorical.

The Artful Pauper wrote: I can see that no fruitful discussion is taking place with me here ....

That "fruitful discussion" is not possible with you because you would not change your teenaged communistic dictatorship. In other words: You don't want that "fruitful discussion".

The Artful Pauper wrote:I will leave.

Thanks. :)
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Mon Sep 01, 2014 5:21 pm

Frankly, I think that I should apologize to AP. Rereading his posts, I think that I can see that he was intending a different perspective than as it first appeared. First he got the wrong impression, then we got the wrong impression. Internet exchanges can be tricky (everyone tends to be overly defensive).

Sorry AP.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby The Artful Pauper » Mon Sep 01, 2014 7:13 pm

James S Saint wrote:Frankly, I think that I should apologize to AP. Rereading his posts, I think that I can see that he was intending a different perspective than as it first appeared. First he got the wrong impression, then we got the wrong impression. Internet exchanges can be tricky (everyone tends to be overly defensive).

Sorry AP.


If you mean that it's okay and I appreciate it. It's all a learning lesson. And in reality when I called you two immature I was just moralizing and actually was sulking. My apologies as well, as I entered the conversation with too much self confidence and an incomplete grasp of the conversation, so now I've been showed up to be the goof.

I'll lay off for Arminius's sake.
User avatar
The Artful Pauper
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:16 am

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Orbie » Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:20 pm

Here again, the discussion strayed between feeling states of optimism/pessimism. These states are merely non categorical by now, and reverting to the basic break of either=trying to sustain in the romantic notion, as it should be,(how many bewailed this loss,), or to die-entangle it by way of de-signifying it, via the gradual relaxing of codes of standards particularly of censures of expression.

Knowing full well, the initial break started with the expression of exasperated logical and inconsequential relationships, between feeling states and actual changes in context and perspective,leaving little room for regrets.

So discussion on this level is fruitless, and see no need to regret anything, the different points of view are on different levels, where no real consensus can be attained.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:05 am

obe wrote:Here again, the discussion strayed between feeling states of optimism/pessimism. These states are merely non categorical by now, and reverting to the basic break of either=trying to sustain in the romantic notion, as it should be,(how many bewailed this loss,), or to die-entangle it by way of de-signifying it, via the gradual relaxing of codes of standards particularly of censures of expression.

Knowing full well, the initial break started with the expression of exasperated logical and inconsequential relationships, between feeling states and actual changes in context and perspective,leaving little room for regrets.

So discussion on this level is fruitless, and see no need to regret anything, the different points of view are on different levels, where no real consensus can be attained.

No. There are other reasons which make that "no real consensus can be attained", and one of this reasons is the emotional motive, for example expressed in sarcasm. The first sentence of The Artful Pauper in this thread was: "This thread is really defeatist." It is confusing because of the sarcastic background. His whole post:


Because of the fact that I had a good conversation with him in the "END OF HISTORY" thread I was very much surprised when I read all that sarcastic words. And I think that this sarcasm respectively the motives for that sarcasm are the reason why "no real consensus can be attained" (Obe).

In any case: the "pessimism/optimism" dualism is not the main reason why "no real consensus can be attained" (Obe) because it plays no role in this discussion. The "yes"-sayer are no pessimists, but probably realists, and the "no"-sayers are no optimists, but probably idealists. The words "pessimism" and "opimism" are moreover disqualified (because of too much abuse) when it comes to answer the question of this thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings?.

Moreno, for example, is a "no"-sayer. According to you, Obe, "no real consensus can be attained" between "no"-sayers ans "yes"-sayers, but the truth is that Moreno and some other "no"-sayers can find a consnsus with the "yes"-sayers. Note:
"Yes (by trend)" means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%.
" No (by trend)" means a „no“ as acceptance or agreement of about 0-20%.

Arminius wrote:
obe wrote:Of course, Arminius, however, for the same reason, both points of view have to be considered ....

And it is the case in this thread! The interim balance sheets are one of more examples which show that in this thread even three points ov view are included (and please look also at the results!):

For comparison:
1st Interim balance sheet,
2nd Interim balance sheet,
3rd Interim balance sheet,
4th Interim balance sheet,
5th Interim balance sheet.

These results do not necessarily speak for the "yes"-sayers, do they? And before the beginning I knew that the "yes"-sayers are the fewest.

And I very often said that for me the probability that machines replace all humans is about 80% (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and
here); thus the 20% probability that machines will not replace all humans is not low (note: probability calculation!).

The Artful Pauper has not read the whole thread but probably some sentences of it and come to the "decision": "Defeatist". And that's not okay, folks!
Last edited by Arminius on Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Orbie » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:15 pm

Remember our discussion about relating, associating?Consensus was one, synthesis another, and incorporation again another. Are these just mere verbal manipulations, best fitted to be placed in a dusty attic to gather spider webs? No, these concepts are different, they are symbolic of an intention to form some kind of trust, in the meaning of them.

How these concepts evolve is one thing, and may be You would agree that it's beyond the intent of this forum. Or not? At any rate the differrance, implies, how, one is to look at the outcome of the statistic. The 80-20 split, is apparently credible, but still subject to the interpretive force of the way the machines and human beings are associated. This differance, is at the crux of post nihilistic and pre deconstructionist philosophy, and my point is, and many here and elsewhere seem to agree on this point, that post modern philosophy has not served well, generally, those, who seem unable to go beyond it.(nihilism)

That some people can associate and come to an agreement on basis of consensus, is not based on an adequate ground. I would think, this forum is valuable in many ways, one of which, is by showing, that it is not a done deal, but a work in progress, a learning experience.

As such, we have to agree on whether we mean the same things when we say we are reaching some agreement. I agree with Moreno, that consensus may be reached, and as i recall, he was in the same non committed column as i was. But non commitment, does not require the spelling out of the kind of relationship which combines the elements to be explored.

I learned that Your original presumption as to the synthetic nature of Kant being correctly presupposed by Leibnitz was correct, it was he, who carried this thema into post modernism. I think this ground may yet to be sufficiently understood, but the general outline has been drawn to get the thing going and see if, there needs to be more elaboration.
Last edited by Orbie on Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:33 pm

obe wrote:I agree with Moreno, that consensus may be reached ....

Where and when did Moreno say that? It was me who said this:
Arminius wrote:Moreno, for example, is a "no"-sayer. According to you, Obe, "no real consensus can be attained" between "no"-sayers and "yes"-sayers, but the truth is that Moreno and some other "no"-sayers can find a consensus with the "yes"-sayers.

The term "can find a consensus" does not mean "Moreno said that consensus may be reached" because he didn't, but true is that he can find a consensus.
Last edited by Arminius on Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Orbie » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:36 pm

I merely quoted You for saying he said it, furthering the element of intended trust that is a requirement for such consensus. I trusted You to mean what Moreno meant with the
seemingly different propositions, as fairly well similar.
Last edited by Orbie on Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:39 pm

Please note that I didn't say that he said that a consensus can be reached, but I said that Moreno and other members of this forum are good examples to show that a consensus can be reached. See the corresponding posts of this thread.

If a consensus can be reached, then it is not necessarily sure that a consensus will always be reached. It depends on many factors.
Last edited by Arminius on Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Orbie » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:44 pm

I appreciate Your looking into the distinction. Carry on!
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:54 pm

obe wrote:I appreciate Your looking into the distinction. Carry on!

Thank you, Obe. Carry on! :)
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:47 pm

zinnat13 wrote:
Arminius wrote:"The Birth of Tragedy" shows Nietzsche's "early times as an adult philosopher", and his "early times as an adult philosopher" are one of the well "closed" periods of Nietzsche`s philosphical life, and because of that Nietzsche in his "early times as an adult philosopher" is not difficult to understand. The problem is the whole Nietzsche, his four or even five philosophical periods, not each of them because each of them are a well closed and well known single period, and, if combinded, probably also not two of them. The problem of understanding Nietzsche's philosophical life is his problematic life itself, especially after he broke with Wagner (and "The Birth of Tragedy" belongs to the period before Nietzsche broke with Wagner).


Arminius, you seems to be confirming my opinion about him.

I'm sorry, Zinnat, but I don't think so. You said (for example):

zinnat13 wrote:FC once told me that i misread him and advised me to read The Birth of Tragedy. I downlowded and start reading it but many chapters passed i was still unable to understsand what his referred subject it, much less his opinion, thus stopped.

I don't think that Nietzsche's texts are difficult to understand - the revers is true: Nietzsche's texts are easy to understand. Nietzsche said this and that . there are some contradictions in his texts, but they as such are not difficult to understand.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Orbie » Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:43 am

Actually, if You start with the premiss, that Nietzsche, is the ultimate ironist, then everything will fall into place. That no ONE understood that, caused HIS demise, and that of WW2.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby LaughingMan » Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:34 am

Where there is the ability to enslave all of humanity there certainly will be the desire to do just that by groups of people out there.
Coming Out Live Streaming Online From The Global Gulag, Asylum, Police State, And Oligarchical Plantation Near You.

Image
User avatar
LaughingMan
Cynical Asshole
 
Posts: 2712
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:47 pm
Location: FEMA Region V, U.S.S.A.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:26 pm

Machines and all those ecological, economic, and demographical problems:

Reforming democracy is relatively useless, but reforming demography is not useless.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:The solution of more restrictions ....

No!

My solution has nothing or merely less to do with restriction because the regulation does not work via state, but via market. Those family managers are not paid by the state, but by the market. The "restriction" you mentioned refers merely to the law of birth control, family planing, population control ("oh", you may think, "China!", but it is not like "China") and not to the regulation itself. China's regulation was and is part of the regulation by a dictatorship. We may wait until the Western countries will have become more dictatorial than China ever was; then this regulation will come anyway, but it will come with more restrictions, with more repressions, depressions, suppresions, ... and so on. Better we do it via market than dictators will do it instead of us and "for us" ( :wink: ) via dictatorship.

Ok, so if this is not passed as a law, that we simply get rid of the tax credits with for people with multiple children, then leave people along. I can live with this and I would see it as the free market, possibly, working to reduce the amount of children people have. If this is what you mean, I guess I'm on board.

If a law is passed, I'm against it...

Arminius wrote:It is possible to do it via market.

In this case referring to China means distracting from the subject, and referring only to the exceptional cases means the same because those problems are existent anyway and increase exponentially. So we have to find a solution for the problems, or the increased problems will come to us.

Again: My solution leads to less regulation, thus less state, thus less dicatorship because the gigantic and exponentially increasing costs that we have now for ignoring this problems would gradually disappear.

The only real problem I've seen is that you have not really explained clearly what you mean... Bogging us down in attempting to understand what you mean...

These are my presuppositions:

    (1) Currently there are three main global(istic) problems:
      (1.1) the ecologic problem,
      (1.2) the economic problem,
      (1.3) the demographic problem.
So, if we really want to solve that three main global(istic) problems, then we can do it only by considerating this three facts:

      (1.1) the pollution of the environment is a disaster,
      (1.2) the wealth is unequally or at least unfair distributed,
      (1.3) the offspring is unequally or at least unfair distributed.
    (2) Currently the politicians are not able to solve that three main problems and produce more and more regulated markets.

    (3) „Free“ markets have not existed anymore since the end of the Stone Age and will not exist until the Stone Age will come back.
The politicians don't solve but increase the problems. The market allone can't solve but decrease the problems, if such a market is wanted, allowed.

My solution requires less regulated markets and laws than we have today. A familiy manager is needed for my solution and will be found soon via market, if those bureaucratic laws which currently forbid to have family managers will be eliminated. Many other laws will have to be eliminated as well before the concept of the family management will be successful.

Many people have no time for their children - a family manager would do the job temporarily instead of them. Many people merely have children because the state pays for them - that is criminal, unsocial, thus egoistical, and of course that leads to many more problems which increase exponentially. Many people who want to work, to supply, to carry, to achieve, to accomplish, to afford will be able to have children then, now they can't, and other many people who don't want to work will have children too but not more than one per adult (= two per married couple).

The merely one law which is needed for my solution is that which says: „it is not allowed to have less and more than one child per adult“. In view of the fact that many laws will disappear, these two laws are very few. Furthermore, my solution leads to more wealth because the productive can be reproductive again (now they can't), so that there will be also productive people in the future. Because of the probability that again more intelligent and responsible people would take more care about their environment the reduction of the pollution of the environment would also become more probable.

„Dangerous thinking“ must be allowed on this forum because it is a philosophy forum and no party conference. My solution is a taboo, I know, it is not wanted by the rulers because if practised it will be successful, and that means that the rulers will lose their control and consequently their power. The rulers don't want other humans, especially intelligent humans, because they are not needed, machines can replace them.

I have made a proposal how to solve the three main problems of Western modernity which has become the three main problems of the planet Earth, thus of all human beings, probably of all „higher“ living beings, perhaps of all living beings. If each adult of the human beings is allowed to have one child but not allowed to have both less and more than one child, then the population shrinks very slowly because the reproduction rate is merely 1,0 and not 1,07 or more (population growth). My solution menas that the qualitiy of the population grows, while the quantity of the population shrinks, so that all become richer and also more responsible for their environment because of their quality.

Else the reverse continues: Western modernity as a way of life for all human beings as a growing population on a more and more uninhabitable planet Earth.
Last edited by Arminius on Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby LaughingMan » Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:11 pm

Wait a minute, are you saying that government powers controlling whole robotic armies in the future will not be so nice and caring towards us?

*Laughs*
Coming Out Live Streaming Online From The Global Gulag, Asylum, Police State, And Oligarchical Plantation Near You.

Image
User avatar
LaughingMan
Cynical Asshole
 
Posts: 2712
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:47 pm
Location: FEMA Region V, U.S.S.A.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Only_Humean » Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:44 pm

Here's an interesting related article on ongoing studies into the dangers of superintelligence:
http://chronicle.com/article/Is-Artific ... e-a/148763
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Orbie » Sun Sep 14, 2014 8:18 pm

Humean, i am kind of beginning to feel very much as if this is the coming scene. Just almost simultaneously, i wrote a piece in the off topic forum,'daily journal' of the introduction in Japan of robots , actually placed on homebound students' desks, and learning through this kind of interaction and memory. Almost at the same time you brought in the super intelligence article. Uncanny and strange. However, the article brings to light concerns of the negative aspects of robotics, corresponding reversely to one of usefulness, and even developing technically feasible empathy, as in the Japanese robotic student, being used in Japanese classrooms.

PS i checked the time of postings, Your's was posted prior to mine, but i had no way to know about it, therefore if there is a connection, (which to me seems to be the case) it is not as if the two blogs were totally unrelated.

The relationship between a developing, benign system (my 'good' robot) with the article's concern with the risk of developing metastatically dubious super-intelligent systems, as measured by the different rates of change of the systems may parallel a coincidental occurrence of divergence of error as risk. If the question , at all, be asked of concurrence of risk management between two different systems, as a new basis to developed , using extra differential systems to intervene between them, to diminish the risk, can such co-incidences as my posting a very similar post, be some indication of the risks of assuming traditional logic formats coming up in the future?

If so, probability-function data should very much be focused upon as legitimate ,correlates of such variables in risk management of super-intelligence.

Just a thought, but traditional hardware, may reach limits to actually afford , not to involve concepts of simultaneity into the equation. (Here the example is very crude, Your blog predated mine by twenty minutes, but then again i had not read Your blog prior to writing mine.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:43 am

LaughingMan wrote:Wait a minute, are you saying that government powers controlling whole robotic armies in the future will not be so nice and caring towards us?

*Laughs*

What's your point, Laughing Man?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby LaughingMan » Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:52 am

Arminius wrote:
LaughingMan wrote:Wait a minute, are you saying that government powers controlling whole robotic armies in the future will not be so nice and caring towards us?

*Laughs*

What's your point, Laughing Man?


That an advanced technological society run by a few psychopaths around the world will be an eternal nightmare for humanity.

Do I pass your screening good sir?
Coming Out Live Streaming Online From The Global Gulag, Asylum, Police State, And Oligarchical Plantation Near You.

Image
User avatar
LaughingMan
Cynical Asshole
 
Posts: 2712
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:47 pm
Location: FEMA Region V, U.S.S.A.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:07 pm

LaughingMan wrote:
Arminius wrote:
LaughingMan wrote:Wait a minute, are you saying that government powers controlling whole robotic armies in the future will not be so nice and caring towards us?

*Laughs*

What's your point, Laughing Man?


That an advanced technological society run by a few psychopaths around the world will be an eternal nightmare for humanity.

Yeah. Such is life - at least human life. And those ruling pschopaths and their functionaries call the other people "psychopaths". Do you know what I mean?

LaughingMan wrote:Do I pass your screening good sir?

Yes, of course, good boy.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:19 pm

The dangers come not necessarily from evil motives, says Bostrom, but from a powerful, wholly nonhuman agent that lacks common sense.

Imagine a machine programmed with the seemingly harmless, and ethically neutral, goal of getting as many paper clips as possible. First it collects them. Then. realizing that it could get more clips if it were smarter, it tries to improve its own algorithm to maximize computing power and collecting abilities. Unrestrained, its power grows by leaps and bounds, until it will do anything to reach its goal: collect paper clips, yes, but also buy paper clips, steal paper clips, perhaps transform all of earth into a paper-clip factory. "Harmless" goal, bad programming, end of the human race.

That is what has been driving people for thousands of years, "bad programming".
Now the machines have it too, driving them even harder, faster, stronger, meaner, and a whole lot smarter.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:13 pm

    THE MACHINES AND THE UNPRODUCTIVE HUMANS.

    - The reasonably fair distribution of children. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective "fair". Currently the distribution of children is absolutely unfair, and if it is right (and it is right - because fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth are correlated) that everyone wants to copy himself / herself, then it is fair that both the less-productive people and the more-productive people can do it. Currently the less-productive people merely produce children and nothing else, and for that they get money from the state, thus the taxpayers who have few or no children (so in the end there are merely less-productive people). Do you think that that is fair? If yes, then we can end our conversation. Do you think it will be alright if we will have merely less-productive people, so that the whole human population will be less-productive which actually means unproductive? If you say "yes", then you have to say "yes" too when it comes to this question: Will machines completely replace all human beings?.

    - The reasonably fair distribution of children increases the wealth of the less-productive people - right, Gib - but of the more-productive people too. Both condition each other. If the less-productive people are poor and have more children than the more-productive people and have to be supported by the more-productive people (and that all is the case), then the trend is that the more-productive also become poor and less-productive. One has always to consider the time too, for example to differ in "short time", "middle time", and "long time". What I am reffering to is mainly the middle and especially the long time because this "global society" lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of our children, as I already said (here).

    - The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more peace because that distribution is reasonably fair. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective "fair", Gib. The huge majority of people who are wealthy don't want war, they just want wealth. Human beings are luxury beings, and if the luxury of the present time is reached, then they are - by the majority - satisfied (I am not speaking of the rulers, the upper class, which is a special case because of its power which has been increasing exponentilally, horribly). Normal people are mostly satisfied when they have reached the luxury which they think has to be reached at a time. They are peaceful. War is an issue of the upper class, not of the middle class, and of the lower class because of their poorness, envy, unhappiness, resentment.

    - The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more competence because the reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more intelligence (cp. 2.2.2.). It is proven that fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth correlate with each other.

    Gib wrote:I'm not sure I quite got that. Sounds like you're say that all the money that has to be spent on the less-productive's huge families will be unnecessary when they limit the number of children they have to one/adult, and so that money will be redistributed to the more-productive, meaning that they don't have to spend as much time working for it and therefore can use that extra time to raise children.

    Aa) If you have no children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have much time for being a more-productive.
    Ba) If you have many children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive.
    Ab) If you have no children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you are not a more-productive.
    Bb) If you have many children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive and that you are not a more-productive because you do not want to be a more-productive.

    Gib wrote:But some things don't add up ....

    No - because they also add up.

    Gib wrote:How is it that a couple without children has to spend all their time working just to scrape by while a couple with several children and who work less (because of lack of time [and in many cases also because of the lack of the will to work]) has enough money to feed several mouths (these mouths are mainly feeded by the taxpayers, the more-productive people [see above])? I would think the trend would work in reverse. Having several children would force a couple to work long hours just to make enough money to feed all those little mouths, whereas a couple without children wouldn't have to work nearly as hard just to feed themselves.

    Egoism is on both sides, Gib. You can't eliminate egoism but merely extreme egoism, thus egomania.

    The history of the Western societies shows how the trend will be for the other societies in the future, but there is one problem: it will not be the same but merely a similar devolopment because the other societies belong to other cultures, and if they know the history of the Western culture, then they also know what to do in order to become modern but not Western. They don't want to live the Western way of life, they have a different tradtition. More and more of them resist the Western way of life.

    You can have many children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. You can have no children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. It depends on which culture you belong to, which mindset / mentality and feelings / affects you have.

    The scapegoat is not always the typical Western middle class "bourgeois", Gib.

    Gib wrote:And why do you imagine wealth being redistributed the way you describe? Suppose we take a couple from your "less-productive" class. They're less productive because, with all their children, they have no time to work [and in many cases also because of the lack of the will to work {see above}]). But we limit the number of children they can have to one/adult. Now they have more time. They become more productive. They earn more money and become more wealthy. Seems like the wealth got "redistributed" back to themselves, not to the "more-productive" class.

    Yes and no - because in that case the more-productive people have to pay less taxes, less charges, less surcharges etc.. It is logical. So both the more-productive people and the less-productive people will become more wealthy, if those of the less-productive who have become part of the more-productiveare more that those of the more-productive people who have become part of the less-productive people. And that is the case. So a solution of the demographical problem is necessary.
    Image
    User avatar
    Arminius
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 5732
    Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
    Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

    Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

    Postby Arminius » Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:26 am

      THE MACHINES AND THE UNPRODUCTIVE HUMANS.

      gib wrote:Oh, you're imagining a welfare system. That's the missing element... but I was supposed to know that anyway.

      ....

      Well, that's clear now that you mentioned getting rid of the welfare state.

      Gib, the welfare state is not a new penomenon. If I showed you the welfare state of the 19th century (for example the German state during the time when Bismarck was Reichskanzler), you would have asked: that was a welfares state? Yes, it was, and Bismarck's welfare state was the first and the best one. What I want to say is that we have to consider that this welfare state has changed and unfortunately become a huge monster. But my main point is not the welfare state allone but also and first of all the justice of generations (remember: demography is my theme here). The problem is that this modern "society" lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of the offspring, as I already said (here and here). This includes not only the debts but also the demographic disaster and the pollution of the whole planet Earth. So the pictures again:
      Image Image Image Image

      The welfare state must not be eliminated but reduced. If we wanted to find back to a pure or nearly pure society of humans (and not to rush in a "society" of machines and half-machines and human slaves or even no humans), then the welfare state as a monster would not be needed anymore. But the most people want the contradiction, the oxymoron, because with the machines and more and more machines the welfare state will be needed more than ever before but eliminated. That's a "good" outlook for our offspring, isn't it, Gib?
      Last edited by Arminius on Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
      Image
      User avatar
      Arminius
      ILP Legend
       
      Posts: 5732
      Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
      Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

      Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

      Postby LaughingMan » Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:34 am

      Yeah. Such is life - at least human life. And those ruling pschopaths and their functionaries call the other people "psychopaths". Do you know what I mean?

      LaughingMan wrote:Do I pass your screening good sir?

      Yes, of course, good boy.



      Like anything else there are different levels of psychopaths.

      Different kinds of psychopaths will complete against other kinds of psychopaths.

      I admit being one because I'm honest about myself.

      Glad I meet your approval. Carry on sir.
      Coming Out Live Streaming Online From The Global Gulag, Asylum, Police State, And Oligarchical Plantation Near You.

      Image
      User avatar
      LaughingMan
      Cynical Asshole
       
      Posts: 2712
      Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:47 pm
      Location: FEMA Region V, U.S.S.A.

      PreviousNext

      Return to Philosophy



      Who is online

      Users browsing this forum: No registered users