Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Arminius · September 20, 2014, 9:41pm

obe:

Arminus: If St. James argument is carried to its limit, there will not be any humanity left, except the 1%. Now lets look at the math. Let’s say it will take another few hundred years to eliminate 99% of the population, and since can not calculate this exactly, a ball park figure should suffice. Let’s say in a century or two the curve will be reduced incrementally by an increasing gradient of change. let’s draw a straight line through the curve and calculate this way.

Say around 8 billion to 10 billion souls very roughly reduced to 1% leaving 100 million people world wide. That would be pretty much a fair equality to what the ancient world population was. I am not too certain of this number but i will look that up.

Now 100 million is a good re-start, but is it conceivable, that this kind of reduction is practical or even conceivable? Would not some bright soul or more than one, become wise to this and do something to try to prevent it? Or will the population like bleating sheep be led to the slaughter? I am very much in doubt that this economy or even one projected a few centuries into the future would be capable to develop this kind of feasibility.

I would propose that projects like Space X, and vastly extended space stations would be constructed and other like planets developed. Thereupon the uneducated and the misaligned, would be given another chance to re develop new frontiers. Their progenitors will look upon the 1% back on earth as Olympian Gods, as long as technological decay will not enable to form anything but myths. Although both versions are more fiction then fact, the later is more credible.

But perhaps or probably (remember my estimate of thir probability: 80%) the machines will replace this 1%-humans as well.

Orbie · September 22, 2014, 2:33pm

That is exactly what is wrong with the world today. The created always think they are better and smarter than their creators. There is reasonable doubt, over the idea that machines may become so advanced that they can actually, not only outsmart their creators, men, but will be able to actually stage a revolution or completely eliminate themmankind.

They may do this simply because they do not need them, or, they will look at men as competition. The other scenario is, that advanced machines simply go the evil way.

The perfect analogy is, the concept of us being the machines which God created. We rebelled against god at some point, and that revolt lead us to being expelled from paradise.

Our very early thema in this matters could tell us an early warning, or a kind of prophecy, that rebellion against your creators is often not a good idea. Maybe this has happened before, and the idea has trickled down from re-occurance.

If the very advanced machines of the future will become the perfect cyborg, a state of diminishing difference between human and machine, then this may make perfect sense. If this may happen, it would become a self fulfilling prophecy followed by the necessary rebellion .as a recurring stage in development, where the search for knowledge will start over again.

It may be objected that machines will be able to ultimately self replicate, but such replication again will lead to the post utopian sexual replication, because the discovery by an ontology which would be evaluated by the machine as driven by a power? Pleasure and replication would necessitate the simulation of mammalian sexual behavior, and through the hedonistic progress, there would occur a con current devolution of intelligence, as the result of the shift in the primary focus away from the emphasis on intelligence, toward natural selection, via dominant characteristics?

The idea of beauty would diminish the One, the aesthetic One would never take over the concept of the One , it could synthesize with it, and become the symbolically ultimate complex of all, perfect ideas. Therefore religion would rule through aesthetic unity, symmetry and repression, crucifying the rebels , who would like to unify the concept of the creator with that of the created.

After such a momentous auto de fe, the aesthetic interpretation would be re-differentiated, only to cause another Kierkeegard elevate it above and beyond the One. The One would fade away in a dramatic hermenautic inclosure, whereby the representation would become the ideal.

Is this possible? I see no other alternative to the other view, which is the self created One. The reason the self created One can never be found, is, that it is enclosed within the hermenautic ring.

Finally, is the ring the supreme symbol of exclusion, and inclusion as a metaphor for separating, denying the guilt over this whole process we call existence? Are the gods guilty, and by doing this, denying their own guilt?

Arminius · September 27, 2014, 10:18pm

Humans’ pleasure and replication are already separated. So humans are now a species between animals (humans) and (humans,) machines or gods, not far away from (those) machines between humans and gods.

Arminius · October 3, 2014, 4:40pm

Back to the article which was praised by Only Humean:

Is artificial intelligence a threat?

Orbie · October 3, 2014, 6:02pm

Arminius, hi, the degree of separation as of yet maybe does not adhere a systemic model requirement to emerge a necessary component, to avoid extreme differential between the human and the artificial intelligence. But perhaps there are some
elementary systems in place, or in the works to prevent total dfferentiation. I don’t know, but something tells me that it must be so. Forgive my
late reply.

Arminius · October 3, 2014, 6:23pm

Hi, Obe. What is it that tells you that it must be so?

Orbie · October 3, 2014, 6:35pm

Because it goes to argue, that with the ontology of the logical model’s differentiation, or the ontological de-modeling, if You were, on basis of the logic of exclusion, as opposed to identification, —if the degree of separation between human and artificial intelligence reaches a limit, an artificial systemic model needs to be installed by definition.

I am extending the argument by way of human intelligence the last two thousand years, as an ontological necessity.

Since artificial intelligence is in the very basic stage of development, the degree of separation being of no real consequence as of yet, the SAL type menace, may yet seem only a remote possibility.

Orbie · October 3, 2014, 11:50pm

…

Orbie · October 4, 2014, 1:12am

i had the article but somehow it got erased. To paraphrase, from: Ladislav Zjarka’s Science’s 2013, http//wwwlaumath.com/content
7/1/3

'Solving diffrential equtions are able to define models for a variety of pattern recognition. (Here ref. to James thread on pattern recognition)

primary functional approximation problem applying genetic programing techniques.
or, artificial neural network construction (ANN)
a common ANN operating principal based on entire simlarity relations of new printed input pattern with the traied ones.

Is this something akin tom what we were talking about? If so, then intuitive or apriori approaches to cybernetics is somewhat, or possibly warranted. If not, let it go as something possible but not necessarily probable. A kind of mind game.

Arminius · October 7, 2014, 3:41pm

Which thread do you mean?

Tom?

Orbie · October 7, 2014, 3:59pm

Sorry, I’ve had trouble with my computer with editing. It should read ‘to’, instead of ‘tom’. I read James’ blog on recognition, and i will try to find it in the archives, it’s been a while.

Arminius · October 7, 2014, 4:04pm

Thank you, Obe.

Arminius · October 8, 2014, 6:00pm

Humans have created machines and suppressed themselves (at least 99% of them), but they have not become machines!

Artimas · October 8, 2014, 6:15pm

They sure think and suppress emotions like them.

Arminius · October 15, 2014, 8:50am

Have you found it in the archives, Obe?

Orbie · October 15, 2014, 1:56pm

No, not yet, i am afraid, buti will contact him maybe he can tell me. He is here sometimes, maybe he will see this and respond to it. So James, if You are reading this, where can Your blog on facial recognition be found? Thanks

James_S_Saint · October 15, 2014, 2:06pm

My blog on facial recognition???
What blog?

Orbie · October 15, 2014, 2:19pm

Then it’s on ‘recognition’ i am certain of it, about a tear ago. I will find some time today, and really search them archives, unless i am hallucinating. No i am certain of it, and even made a mental note to go back to it. LOL

Arminius · November 9, 2014, 10:43pm

Today I found this website:
[list][list][list][list]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stowe-boyd/robots-jobs-purpose-humans_b_5689813.html[/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]

James_S_Saint · November 9, 2014, 11:01pm

The indications are fairly stark. The work in routine occupations is trending toward zero. This fall lines up fairly well with the rise of automation of various kinds. For example, computer programs are doing the work of paralegals and x-ray technicians, and factory robots are displacing large numbers of automobile assembly line workers. There are applications that can write sports newspaper articles, based simply on the scoring history in the game.

Of course, for those who consider science fiction as the best oracle for an unknowable future, consider this shot in the dark from Isaac Asimov, who wrote in 1964 about a visit to the World’s Fair of 2014:
The world of A.D. 2014 will have few routine jobs that cannot be done better by some machine than by any human being. Mankind will therefore have become largely a race of machine tenders.
Soon, all that will be left for human beings will be the non-routine, creative work. How many of our occupations will our software overlords steal away from us? Many more than today, according to Carl Benedict Frey and Michael A. Osborne, two researchers at Oxford who looked at 702 current occupations.
“Soon, all that will be left for human beings will be the non-routine, creative work.”

The researchers found that approximately half of current occupations (47 percent) are at risk of going the way of the telephone operator within just a decade or two. These two researchers relied on the same matrix of work as the Federal Reserve team, and examined how quickly robotic dexterity and A.I. cognition would hollow out jobs that seem to be the preserve of humans today:
Our findings could be interpreted as two waves of computerisation, separated by a "technological plateau". In the first wave, we find that most workers in transportation and logistics occupations, together with the bulk of office and administrative support workers, and labour in production occupations, are likely to be substituted by computer capital.
Note that the “transportation and logistics” sector includes many occupations that will be slammed by autonomous vehicles, like truckers (the number one occupation for men in the U.S. currently), taxi drivers and warehouse workers. Administrative support is the number one job for women in the US, so our robot overlords are equal opportunity, at least.

Frey and Osborne suggest that the second future wave of displacement will come at some later date, when A.I. gains the secrets of creativity and social intelligence. That may take a longer time, but at some future date, lawyers, engineers, brain surgeons and even actors might be displaced by 'bots. In fact, one venture capital firm, Deep Knowledge Ventures, has already appointed an algorithm to its board of directors.
“Lawyers, engineers, brain surgeons and even actors might be displaced by 'bots.”

So, we are confronted with the critical question of 2025, as I stated in the recent Pew Internet report, AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs:
What are people for in a world that does not need their labor, and where only a minority are needed to guide the 'bot-based economy?
While it is likely that for the next few decades the educated, creative and inventive will find avenues to gainful employment, that will not be the case for all. How will we organize our world if machines can provide goods and services at lower and lower costs while fewer and fewer have income enough to buy anything?

“when A.I. gains the secrets of creativity and social intelligence.”
Unknown to the author of that story, “they” already have it.