Page 9 of 87

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:42 am
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:What did androids being made by human and having human interests have to do with anything?

With anything? You think that machines with human interests don't need anything?

James S Saint wrote:I just don't understand the relevance.

Existing things or beings have to do with other existing things or beings in their surrounding area or in even more areas. Machines with partial human interests - with a partial human will (!) - will have to do with more other existing things or beings in more areas.

All machines need physico-chemical "food", after an accident they need a repair, and in the case of replication they need even more of that material they are made of.

Is it this relevance you don't understand ?

Are you saying that because of their association with humans, they will become human-like in their passions?

That is a question I can only answer without any guaranty.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:47 am
by James S Saint
I can tell you that at one point they certainly will become "emotional". But that will tend to be a reptilian type of emotion, not what we consider to be more human like emotions. Empathy, sympathy, and love are more complex emotions and unlikely to arise in a machine world. Anger and hatred occur more simply.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:07 pm
by Kriswest
That depends upon the programming.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:29 pm
by Arminius
@ All members, and all readers!

If we assume that the probability for replacing of all human beings by machines is even 0% (!), which affects will that have for our future development, for our future evolution and perhaps for our history („perhaps“ because of the high probability that history will end in that case too) and for the future development of our machines?

I think that human beings will very much more depend upon machines than human beings have been depending upon machines since the last third of the 18th century.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:55 pm
by Kriswest
And what about machines depending upon humans? I see mutual dependency quite probable. Programming is quite important.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:53 am
by Arminius
Kriswest wrote:And what about machines depending upon humans?

Since God was murdered (R.I.P.) and replaced by humans machines have been replacing humans. We can rephrase your interrogative sentence. Before God was murdered, there was the question "And what about humans depending upon God?", and after that there has been being the question: "What about humanic machines depending upon godly humans?", and in the future there will be the question: "What about machines depending on humanic machines?" which will lead to a new circle of questions beginnig with the question: "What about New Gods depending on machines?"

Kriswest wrote:Programming is quite important.

More important is the wisdom, at least the knowledge of the fact that humans make mistakes.

:-k

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:13 am
by James S Saint
Kriswest wrote:That depends upon the programming.

Everything depends on the programming. And what that means is that in order to do one thing well, other things get their programming free.

One need not program emotion into an android. One merely has need to install in the android the heuristic ability to seek out efficient ways of accomplishing its tasks. Emotions will soon emerge quite automatically. Lizards, spiders, and bees can do it. It doesn't take sophisticated programming.

That is not to say that emotions really are the most efficient way to accomplish things. Emotions are merely a phase of figuring out the most efficient way. It takes wisdom to see past the apparent, a wisdom that is not installed into the android, because the programmers don't have it themselves.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:58 am
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote:Everything depends on the programming. And what that means is that in order to do one thing well, other things get their programming free.

One need not program emotion into an android. One merely has need to install in the android the heuristic ability to seek out efficient ways of accomplishing its tasks. Emotions will soon emerge quite automatically. Lizards, spiders, and bees can do it. It doesn't take sophisticated programming.

That is not to say that emotions really are the most efficient way to accomplish things. Emotions are merely a phase of figuring out the most efficient way. It takes wisdom to see past the apparent, a wisdom that is not installed into the android, because the programmers don't have it themselves.

The prmises of the AI are probably false.

I remember the following conversation:

Arminius wrote:
zinnat13 wrote:After the every gap of some years, some scientist in the some corner or the world tends to come forth and claims that all is solved now but nothing happens on the ground. It looks to me it is more related to continue with the incoming huge funding than the actual research. The scientific community just do not want the idea of AI to die because it is the question of the bread and butter to the related persons.

That is probably true, but that is also the status quo you are describing. If you are right, then the time for AI is over. But I don't think that the time for machines alt all will be over. A new, but old idea will bring the new, but old projection and preparation, not in the area of AI, but in the area of AW (Artificial Will[ingness]).

Arminius wrote:
zinnat13 wrote:AI and AW are the same things. Actually, AI entails AW. The machines have to acquire AW before AI.

No, because it depends merely on the definition by humans - and nothing else. And that definition is false. They will find it out - probably by an accident.

What do you think about that?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:06 pm
by James S Saint
Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:The premises of the AI are probably false.
Arminius wrote:No, because it depends merely on the definition by humans - and nothing else. And that definition is false. They will find it out - probably by an accident.

What do you think about that?

I don't know which premises or definitions you would be talking about as being false.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 1:06 pm
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:The premises of the AI are probably false.
Arminius wrote:No, because it depends merely on the definition by humans - and nothing else. And that definition is false. They will find it out - probably by an accident.

What do you think about that?

I don't know which premises or definitions you would be talking about as being false.

One of the false premises is for example the one which Zinnat mentioned:
zinnat13 wrote:Machines are blank on their own so you have to feed then from a to z. But, on the other hand, a child is born with some a priori knowledge. Then, he evaluate and evolve his knowledge. Machines cannot do either of those. (=> #)

Machines don't have to repeat a child's development at all. And there is no proof for your claim that „thinking entity must pass two benchmarks; evaluation and evolution, and both on its own.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 1:09 pm
by James S Saint
Well, I don't know which things that Zinnat thinks have to be fed into the machines that don't have to be fed (via DNA) into a human. As one of those films showed, machines can learn on their own without being simply "fed information".

The fundamental needs for an AI are pretty simple. And as Zinnat said, the AI and the AW are pretty much the same thing.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:09 pm
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote:Well, I don't know which things that Zinnat thinks have to be fed into the machines that don't have to be fed (via DNA) into a human. As one of those films showed, machines can learn on their own without being simply "fed information".

The fundamental needs for an AI are pretty simple. And as Zinnat said, the AI and the AW are pretty much the same thing.

Yes, that is what he said, but that is because of a false premise.

Arthur Schopenhauer said that there is a will (Wille) in the world (Welt), and this will expresses itself in living beings for example. The will itself can be understood as Kant's thing-in-itself (Ding an sich).

The programmers and designers don't have to follow what the theory of evolution and the theory of evaluation dictate. They just have to find the correct programm in order to feed the machines with it. It is not necessary to follow strictly a theory when it comes to program.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:18 pm
by James S Saint
Arminius wrote:Arthur Schopenhauer said that there is a will (Wille) in the world (Welt), and this will expresses itself in living beings for example. The will itself can be understood as Kant's thing-in-itself (Ding an sich).

I think Schopenhauer was merely referring to the general "spirit/behavior of life" as a thing in itself, much like we refer to entropy as a thing, even though it is really just the after effect of a great many things.

Arminius wrote:The programmers and designers don't have to follow what the theory of evolution and the theory of evaluation dictate. They just have to find the correct program in order to feed the machines with it. It is not necessary to follow strictly a theory when it comes to program.

True. The program has to merely do what any intelligent thing would do. If they try to make it follow evolution intentionally, then it cannot evolve. Evolution can only work by trying to defeat it.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:33 am
by Kriswest
What sane programmers would program sentient droids to remove humanity or even program killing as a part of it? Even military minds will know the fatal problems with doing this. A rogue human may program a virus but, then safety programs would be installed for this probability. As a further safety measure cannot a program be written to prevent machine from programming anything without human input?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:35 pm
by James S Saint
Kriswest wrote:What sane programmers would program sentient droids to remove humanity or even program killing as a part of it? Even military minds will know the fatal problems with doing this. A rogue human may program a virus but, then safety programs would be installed for this probability. As a further safety measure cannot a program be written to prevent machine from programming anything without human input?

Firstly we are not talking about sane programmers. We are talking about humans. Secondly, much like the emotions, one need not install a program specifically for the purpose of removing humans. Thirdly, what "sane programmer" would program a drone in Iraq to fire a hellfire missile at an Iraqi tank with people in it? If an android could not kill, there would be little use for it in the military. Yet the military is the very first place such things are developed and used.

A computer cannot be programmed to simply not kill if the computer is very intelligent, because the computer could deduce that almost anything it did would shift events and thus if not directly kill, indirectly cause death some time in the future. By doing work for you, it takes exercise away from you. By doing work for you, it takes employment away from you. By making complex computations for you, it takes mental practices away from you. By making life easier for you, it takes self-control away from you. Anything that it does for you, it takes something away from you. And if it isn't taking it away from you, it is taking it away from someone else who could have been doing it for you instead.

So the reality of the situation is that an android would have to attempt to cause the least death, but at what cost? If by not directly killing a certain few people, perhaps the unemployment rate will go up and cause the death of a great many. Who gets to make that decision? If a baby is on the train tacks, is it to derail the train and thus probably kill many people on board? Or is it to go ahead and kill the baby? Who gets to decide which live and which die?

Because of those kinds of issues, the programming has been merely, "kill when we tell you to kill". And even that is more precisely "do what we say regardless of who's in the way". Police androids have absolute authority in all matters simply because distant authority sends them into the region to accomplish a task and thus, in effect, "the king has commanded his solders" and no one is to get in their way. Any and all resistance is "terrorism" and thus a death sentence. The king's solders are far more valuable than people unless those people are of particular significance to the king.

All the androids are doing is trying to accomplish the task given to them by a higher authority. What are they to do when people get in their way or try to stop them? What does every king do when that happens? He simply removes the people involved. But of course as a clever king, he will not be seen doing it, nor any of his androids. Clever schemes are required to be rid of the "bad people", such as false flag attacks on the androids, justifying counter attacks by the androids who were merely protecting themselves (just as was done with the police in Canada not long ago along with hundreds of other times less noted).

The truth is, they cannot program an android to NOT kill and there would be little to no use for one so programmed. The androids are for the king, not for the consumers who paid for them. They are there to watch out for, protect, and serve... the king. And the more the king uses androids, the less he needs people.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:55 pm
by Kriswest
Can't argue with that. :)

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:58 pm
by Arminius
James s Saint wrote:By making life easier for you, it takes self-control away from you. Anything that it does for you, it takes something away from you. And if it isn't taking it away from you, it is taking it away from someone else who could have been doing it for you instead.

That's the point, yeah.

James s Saint wrote:The truth is, they cannot program an android to NOT kill and there would be little to no use for one so programmed. The androids are for the king, not for the consumers who paid for them. They are there to watch out for, protect, and serve... the king. And the more the king uses androids, the less he needs people.

Even those people who currently do not accept the truth, the facts, will have to practise accepting, because they soon will have to accept the truth, the facts.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:30 am
by Mithus
@ Arminius and James

If it is possibe that all human beings can be completely replaced by machines (and I don't doubt that it is possible) what is there to set against it? Is there something to set against it? How would you encourage young people to get children at all if they have to assume that they are just producing more 'human material', ready to become designed and eventually replaced?
I can see - also on this forum - that people don' t want to hear that humans can be replaced, not even that they are directed. I'm also referring to the End-Of-History-thread. Is that a self-protecting reaction and the only precondition that evolution can go on?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:38 pm
by James S Saint
Mithus wrote:@ Arminius and James

If it is possibe that all human beings can be completely replaced by machines (and I don't doubt that it is possible) what is there to set against it? Is there something to set against it?

What is coming is so vast and momentous, there is only one thing that can be done (that I can think of) - Anentropic Molecularisation. People cannot be stronger, faster, or more intelligent. They only choice left is to be wiser.

Mithus wrote:How would you encourage young people to get children at all if they have to assume that they are just producing more 'human material', ready to become designed and eventually replaced?

The point is to stop human sexuality entirely.
They are already developing an anti-virus that alters the DNA so as to change a homosapian into an aphrodite. But they will insist that any reproduction must be by authority of the State only, thus there will be a dependency built in that is State controlled. What that means is that all citizens, human or not, will be the females and only the state will be male (eternally fucked by the State).

Mithus wrote:I can see - also on this forum - that people don' t want to hear that humans can be replaced, not even that they are directed. I'm also referring to the End-Of-History-thread. Is that a self-protecting reaction and the only precondition that evolution can go on?

It is a reaction that has been programmed into them utilizing ego-defenses to ensure its stubbornness.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:01 pm
by Arminius
Mithus wrote:@ Arminius and James

If it is possibe that all human beings can be completely replaced by machines (and I don't doubt that it is possible) what is there to set against it? Is there something to set against it? How would you encourage young people to get children at all if they have to assume that they are just producing more 'human material', ready to become designed and eventually replaced?
I can see - also on this forum - that people don' t want to hear that humans can be replaced, not even that they are directed. I'm also referring to the End-Of-History-thread. Is that a self-protecting reaction and the only precondition that evolution can go on?

We have a probabilty of about 20% to stop the procees which will lead to the fact (!) that all human beings are completely replaced by machines. I merely see a possibility to stop it, if there will be an accident which will lead to that stop. There will have to be a coincidence like an accident in order to get that possibility. The „human reason“ by itself and the „human emotion“ by itself will never stop, but accelerate that process in favour of the machines.

I would not encourage all „young people to get children at all“, I would favor and support a policy which means just the contrary to the current policy, thus the contrary to the irresponsible mindlessness or abandon concerning (1) culture / civilisation, (2) education, (3) demographics / reproduction / sexuality, (4) ethics / custom / morality / religion, (5) economics / ecology, (6) technique / technology, (7) science, and so on. This policy as the contrary to the current policy would lead to more responsibility at all, thus also when it comes to get children. Not the irresponsible, but merely the responsible human beings would have childen then.

Concerning to the topic of this thread I once made the following interim balance sheet:

Arminius wrote:|_______Will machines completely replace all human beings?______|
|___|___ Yes (by trend) ___|___ No (by trend) ___|___ Abstention ___|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|___|_____ Arminius _____|_______ Dan ________|_____ Obe ______|
|___|__ James S. Saint ___|___ Mr. Reasonable __|__ Lev Muishkin __|
|___|_____ Moreno ______|_______ Fuse _______|____ Kriswest ____|
|___|__________________|_____ Esperanto _____|________________|
|___|__________________|____ Only Humean ___|________________|
|___|__________________|_______ Gib ________|________________|
|___|__________________|______Uccisore ______|________________|
|___|__________________|__ Zinnat (Sanjay) ___|________________|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sum:|_______ 3 ________|_________ 8 ________|_______ 3 ______|

I don't know, whether one can surely interpret this interim balance sheet to represent the will of all people, but I also think that people or at least most people don't want to be completely replaced by machines and that their „arguments“ are merely self-protecting reactions and also reactions because of the fact that they are operated by remote control.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:38 pm
by James S Saint
Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:|_______Will machines completely replace all human beings?______|
|___|___ Yes (by trend) ___|___ No (by trend) ___|___ Abstention ___|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|___|_____ Arminius _____|_______ Dan ________|_____ Obe ______|
|___|__ James S. Saint ___|___ Mr. Reasonable __|__ Lev Muishkin __|
|___|_____ Moreno ______|_______ Fuse _______|____ Kriswest ____|
|___|__________________|_____ Esperanto _____|________________|
|___|__________________|____ Only Humean ___|________________|
|___|__________________|_______ Gib ________|________________|
|___|__________________|______Uccisore ______|________________|
|___|__________________|__ Zinnat (Sanjay) ___|________________|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sum:|_______ 3 ________|_________ 8 ________|_______ 3 ______|

I don't know, whether one can surely interpret this interim balance sheet to represent the will of all people, but I also think that people or at least most people don't want to be completely replaced by machines and that their „arguments“ are merely a self-protecting reaction because they are operated by remote control.

That was done well. 8)

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:25 pm
by Mithus
Arminius wrote: We have a probabilty of about 20% to stop the procees which will lead to the fact (!) that all human beings are completely replaced by machines. I merely see a possibility to stop it, if there will be an accident which will lead to that stop. There will have to be a coincidence like an accident in order to get that possibility.

That means that there is nothing left than waiting for the unpredictable incident. I cannot imagine what could cause such an accident and it depends on the state of the technological development by then, if it's possible for human beings to get back to a human life (if they are still human beings).
I'm interested to learn something about an active way, about something that can be done.

James S Saint wrote:What is coming is so vast and momentous, there is only one thing that can be done (that I can think of) - Anentropic Molecularisation. People cannot be stronger, faster, or more intelligent. They only choice left is to be wiser.

I read your concept of Anentropic Molecularisation, which you started to reveal on Humanarchy. Would you like to present it here as well, on a new thread?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:52 pm
by Moreno
Arminius wrote:Here comes the 1st interim balance sheet:

|_______Will machines completely replace all human beings?______|
|___|___ Yes (by trend) ___|___ No (by trend) ___|___ Abstention ___|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|___|_____ Arminius _____|_______ Dan ________|_____ Obe ______|
|___|__ James S. Saint ___|___ Mr. Reasonable __|__ Lev Muishkin __|
|___|_____ Moreno ______|_______ Fuse _______|____ Kriswest ____|
|___|__________________|_____ Esperanto _____|________________|
|___|__________________|____ Only Humean ___|________________|
|___|__________________|_______ Gib ________|________________|
|___|__________________|______Uccisore ______|________________|
|___|__________________|__ Zinnat (Sanjay) ___|________________|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sum:|_______ 3 ________|_________ 8 ________|_______ 3 ______|

Remember: the history of knowledge and science shows that in the beginnig the majority was wrong and the minority was right, and in the end when the majority adapted itself to the minority it didn't matter anymore who was right or wrong because the knowledge or science had already become normalcy.

Actually I do not think they will replace humans. I can understand why I ended up where I did on the balance sheet, however. It seems to me the modern atheist basing his or her beliefs on science looking out at what is happening should draw the conclusion that humans will be replaced by machines, or at least, there is a very good chance they will be. It is a logical extension of what is already happening and how the technocrats/corporations view us and the nature of the world/universe. I can't see an objection from that camp and I cannot see a force to oppose the replacement that they would consider real. So in a sense I was trying to highlight this and this may have seemed like identification with the belief it will happen.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:54 pm
by James S Saint
Mithus wrote:I read your concept of Anentropic Molecularisation, which you started to reveal on Humanarchy. Would you like to present it here as well, on a new thread?

I have considered that, but there are SO very many questions in the minds of people to answer and everyone wants them all answered first so they can decide whether to love it or hate it before reading more. So... dunno.

The challenge is that due to AM being so different, even though actually very similar to a great many things, people need to see it functioning, not merely discuss the possibility of it. If you were to first discuss how effective Science would be before anyone every heard of such a thing, you would get no support because no one would believe that your "science" would ever change anyone's mind about anything

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:33 am
by Arminius
Mithus wrote:I'm interested to learn something about an active way, about something that can be done.

Do you have any suggestions?

Replacing humans by machines has two sides, and the „good“ side covers the „bad“ side.