Flirting is the beginning of sex, yano.
Well, … I would not seriously call that “sex”.
Moreno:Well, I caught a cold from one of my coworkers and I certainly hope, at the very least in legal terms, he and I did not have sex. If I had caught genital herpes from him, well, I’d hang my head and confess to my wife.
Flirting is the beginning of sex, yano.
In my culture being in the same room with someone who sneezes is not flirting.
The only possible benefits of robots is sex bots obviously.
The only possible benefits of robots is sex bots obviously.
Sex bots?
And:
Do you agree?
Possibly, the machines will prevent the extinction of all human beings, or they will not prevent but accelerate it.
What if we have no chance anymore to get out of the rationality trap in which collective rationality and individual rationality are in conflict?
Arminius:At last the tragedy of the commons leads to the extinction of those who work or contribute otherwise and support those who do not work or do not contribute otherwise and do not supprt anybody, although the latter have own children and the former not. So those who have offspring survive as long as they can have offspring, and the others who have no offspring die out. So it is worthwhile in a commons to be lazy, if a certain number of members is not lazy. But it is to be expected that more and more members of the group will behave lazy and group earnings will fall further, since - morally spoken - a typical human maxim is not the maximization of the own advantage but the avoidance of the own disadvantage. So the tragedy of the commons escalates and escalates, and the whole group gets into a rationality trap in which collective rationality and individual rationality are in conflict. In addition to the rationality trap that I just described, there is also the opposite case in which common resources are increasingly exhausted. In this way, not only many environmental problems, but, interestingly, the population explosion in many countries can be explained. The Neomalthusianist Garret Hardin believed that a liberal access to public goods will at last be the ruin of all. Therefore he called for corresponding restrictions.
Arminius: Garret Hardin:Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
The tragedy of the commons means an evolutionary suicide.
Possibly, the machines will prevent the extinction of all human beings, or they will not prevent but accelerate it.
If the machines will become smart enough, then they will need no cages for the humans.
Mercedes Self Driving Car Recreates World’s First Car Journey Mercedes S Class 2016 CARJAM TV:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiiNHHXugyo[/youtube]
No self driving cars:
Daimler, 1886:
Daimler, DMG Lastwagen Cannstatt, 1896:
Volkswagen, VW Käfer Cabrio:
Until we or whatever we make to replace ourselves, replace them with gm machines and nano-cellulose goops which we take on our spacecraft upon leaving a dead and used up planet behind ‘us’.
Do you think that machines will “eat” the crust of the planet?
I don’t believe there to ultimately be a shortage of materials, reusable grown materials like carbon crystals and organics will replace metals and plastics.
We and machines will be replaced by something which is conscious and infinitely adaptive. Think skyrim, where bodies/forms/machines are the things the characters/consciousnesses beget, and can change and hop in and out of. There may not even be ownership et al! The difference between one thing being better that another is thence interchangeable, just like getting in and out of a car.
Intelligent existence needs something like subsistence / sustenance.
Arminius: Moreno:Until we or whatever we make to replace ourselves, replace them with gm machines and nano-cellulose goops which we take on our spacecraft upon leaving a dead and used up planet behind ‘us’
(just to be gloomy)
Otherwise I agree.
Do you think that machines will “eat” the crust of the planet?
If it all heads toward the singularity I assume they will find a way to ‘eat’ everything.
Okay, thus also the mantle and the core of the earth.
Why sex bots? Because women are becoming less female and desexualized with cultural or political social engineering along with an increasingly socially alienated male population. That’s why I think.
Why sex bots? Because women are becoming less female and desexualized with cultural or political social engineering along with an increasingly socially alienated male population. That’s why I think.
But if “women are becoming less female”, as you say, are men then - according to your belief - not changing, or are they becoming less male or even more male?
edt; Women are perhaps less female because the illusions of them have faded, so now we see a person and not a doll. I preferred them as dolls, but the world keeps turning and eventually strips illusion away.
Intelligent existence needs something like subsistence / sustenance.
it does, and when that is fully a utility ~ bodies worn like a suit, then its a question of what suit is best for the given tasks, rather than a requirement for a battle between ai and humans.
that doesn’t mean AI wont still try some shit on of course.
edt; Women are perhaps less female because the illusions of them have faded, so now we see a person and not a doll. I preferred them as dolls, but the world keeps turning and eventually strips illusion away.
Arminius:Intelligent existence needs something like subsistence / sustenance.
it does, and when that is fully a utility ~ bodies worn like a suit, then its a question of what suit is best for the given tasks, rather than a requirement for a battle between ai and humans.
that doesn’t mean AI wont still try some shit on of course.
Who will win the battle according to your opinion: AI or humans?
For someone who knows the Mendel’s laws and the resulting statistical distributions, the following hypothesis forces itself: Suppose the peak IQ occupational group would be homozygous for a Mendelian allele M1, thus genotype M1M1, the unskilled workers would be M2M2, the professional workers would be heterozygous, thus M1M2. People with a genotypic IQ over 123 should be homozygous M1M1, those with an IQ 105-123 should be heterozygous M1M2, and those with an IQ under 105 should be homozygous M2M2. In reality, the thresholds IQ 105 and IQ 123 mark no sharp boundaries but the average stripline of the overlapping zones of the phenotypes of the tested IQ. So more lively worded, there are three types of modern humans: (1) those very few (with an IQ >= 124) who invent machines, (2) those (with an IQ 105-123) who repair machines, and (3) those great many (with an IQ <= 104) who serve machines.
Now, guess whether machines are capable of replacing all three types of humans.