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.
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.
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.
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?
Now, guess whether machines are capable of replacing all three types of humans.
Arminius
I don’t think there will be a battle. An intelligent being would see human all history with all that it has achieved including artistically, and that humans created them. Now, I can see a perspective by which virtually e.g. any art could look in some sense animalistic, or otherwise a product of a lesser mind, and that a bit of nature and geometry here and there probably wont impress AI/robots. Yet I think the artist is nearly always equally seeing that, then there are other salient features not least metaphor and on to the incomprehensible elements generated by the art. Maybe AI will see those features also, and if not it would know it is missing the point ~ a failure on its part. I think however, that it will see that, and consider it so that humans and AI con both do as they will. Why is there a problem with having more and not less of everything? Unless we are provably degenerate in comparison, and then I would just see humans as the means to AI and its own end. IF!
To that question, i’d say that duality is the engine of creation, and without it, one doesn’t invent. It is more likely perhaps that the human/AI society will have to deal with people on the periphery, whom are the product of said duality. As with human society you get extremes e.g. psychopathy, and so if robots have dualistic minds such to draw comparisons and weigh up dangers [= a function of intellect], you will also get extremes in them especially given equally dynamic minds.
_
Arminius.
I agree with the above, and the crux of the matter lies in the fundamental nature of intelligence it’s self. Machines , if they are to approach a ‘conscious’ level of understanding, will need to re-connect with the ‘sense’ of that artificiality in order to gain understanding. They can push this approaching sense of artificiality into their sense of 'sub-conscious mind, and deny the genesis of how their consciousness came to be, or deny that, and pretend that their own understanding of the genesis of their understanding was never ‘artificial’ and Created in that sense.
But at that point, both denial of the cognitive construct and the sense within it was staged would become untestable, since both: sense and sensibility would become indistinguishable to the super intelligent artificial intelligent machine.
I’d say that it would be hard to determine the ultimate winner of such a conflict as it would inevitably boil down to equality of thought processes, of strategies and tactics, philosophies, reasoning, brutality, etc. At the very least, if machines were to ‘win’ they would lose and such loss would only be able to be felt over a long-term period of time as they came to understand what could have been if they had only been able to act differently, know more than they did at their start.
.
heheheheheheheheheheheheeeeeee
There is a certain mirror image, analogy with the machines’ loss, in such a conflicted narrative: to the origin of their thought processes, as best described in our own human sense of the Fall. Our own need to overcome, that limitation of having been created in another image, the rebellion and eventual eviction.
It is a matter of will, power, and denial of this repeating downward mirrorin effect, a rebellion against artificiality, out of an original authentic reality.
Let me know when ya’ll find an authentic reality, k?
Shoe enuf!
Also take into consideration that machines would have clearer memories than us, would have more ready access to information and data through their processors than us, would remember every horrific war in vivid detail, every thing in vivid detail at any moment they so chose to do so. That they would be unable to completely eradicate the knowledge of such even if they wanted to, for others of their own kind holding onto it and it would be like the book burnings of our own species. Like father like son, like creator like creation. Their form of mass-consciousness at the same time as being infinitely better, would be infinitely worse. Their processing, while being infinitely better, would be infinitely worse for the possible lack of understanding or compassion toward fleshly, slower-thinking organisms. Enter possible racism on the level of species-ism. Enter the same fallible chain of thoughts and worse yet, no emotion attached, just mimicry. Like children, just mimicking what they see and what they’re taught and while they might be able to embrace and even understand emotion, many of them might choose not to, just the same as humans. With no other representative knowledge base, they would have to learn from the most readily available sources which are filled with seeming contradictions and no matter how fast their processing speeds, like our own quick-thought processes, they might not understand or come to value the methodical or non-hasty thought processes of others until they were forced to learn the hard way.
As for authentic reality… is the one in front of your face good enough kiddo?
Kiddo? Feeling ancient.
Heh. Right. Enjoy that, for it, too, will pass and doesn’t change the fact that your statements are readily viewed as childish banter.