Efficiency, which is the same reason given for thousands of currently made laws, not to mention machine designs.
I may have said this in the other thread, but I see a dual pattern. Machines are getting more comlicated and are able to mimic more human traits. Humans are getting more mechanical and are merging with their machines. Many will now say they feel incomplete without their phone, computer, etc. They also interact with each other in a simpler more mechanical way - face to face social interactions are vastly more complicated, even if much of the interaction is happening of less conscious to unconscious levels - though often the participants can access this later or during. Humans are becoming text on screens - which makes them simpler in a turing test sense themselves. I see an active, willing reduction of the range of humanhood. Not that everyone was a deep, aware individual before. I see no particular absolute golden age nor am I particularly nostaligic for some era as a whole. But I do see people losing facets that they once had in greater abundance. Note: one can use modern media and not reduce oneself. But one’s life likely has the following - deep interactions with other humans in face to face contexts AND deep interactions with the non-human. By the latter I do not include human made artifacts. IOW with what gets called nature: animals, plants, landscapes, natural materials and so on.
I realize this is a kind of side issue, but I see the whole process you are concerned about in these two threads as having two parts - a leaning away from life in its fullness by humans, a developing complexity in machines. I never much liked Freuds Death instinct, because he universalized it. You are alive, so you have a libido, but also this death instinct. No, I don’t so. But that many have a death instinct - an urge not to be free, to be more mechanical, to be merely a surface, to live outside oneself - instead of having a rich authentic inner life - to be made of chosen parts, modules that one can purchase, that is to be an object,
that I see as not only common, but endemic. Perhaps the desire not to live was present in many all along, but now we have
- the tools the master this way of killing oneself that looks like something positive to the inclined to be dead.
- corporate training from an early age. (corporate training - for ex. via advertising) distinguishes itself from earlier mind control in that it is based on vastly better science AND utilizes the most recent technological methods.)
But I do want to stress that a model that has
Humans (over here) and Robots/AI (over here)
and wonders if the group, discrete, over there, the robots are going to replaces humans
misses that they are merged, some more completely than others. And which is the tool of the other is not clear at all.
Corporations are kind of social machines. They have no global consciousness. They are collections of humans that function mechanically, along predicable patterns. And these robots are in the process of intermingling the already fuzzy categories of machines/humans.
EVen a human with a job, not yet replaced by a robot in any formal, let’s talk to the union about this shit, way, may already be a transhuman mechanism, so fucking interfaced with his blackberry, concepts of the self from advertising, cellphone, surfing, facebook, fashion, selfies
that he no longer exists as an organic life form.
Because they will be designed to, as they are being designed to right now. Later perhaps they will have their own momentum.
Ok just how out of their own momentum? What ethics, morals, needs and desire could do this? And how or why would one program such animal thoughts into another machine?
No one really wants to , Kris.Machines at a certain
point will vicariously reach a point where the cyborg will become more machine than man. At this point the subtlety of where the human stops and the machine begins will/might become a grey area where the program may not be able to be disabled by de programing. The reason I don’t believe in this, is because people will never loose sight of the knowledge base of technical evolution, men are aware of how to factor that kind of restraint into a system. When you learn math, the formula need not recurrently derived, since derivation it’s self becomes another accessible program. The program it’s self, even if it becomes integrated into the system, may not turn hostile, at most becoming aware of who created them, even if faced with the ultimate supposition that it is a self created entity. As with us, we are still debating the question of whether we are the products of evolution or a Creation. The ultimate program of course is us, and in this sense, we ourselves may very well be a machine, and so on ad perpetua. The question of good and evil is perpetuated in our own confidence as overcoming our machine like, animal within us, disregarding the redemptive power of the same.
They are either designed to reproduce themselves or they develop consciousness and do it out of their last human made programming -which might include programmed in values about efficiency solving certain problems.
I just can’t see it. Efficiency would dictate use of existing material and clean simple programs. Such programs as you say would have to involve competition threat. Machine and humans have different needs and humans would be a resource not all out threat.
We are talking about efficiency toward absolute power answering to a very small few people “on top” (and literally floating above the Earth, very similar as in the film Elysium). People are very inefficient creatures, incapable of competing for service to the elite, and far, far, less trustworthy.
If you found a completely dead planet somewhere that had a great resource on it and you had the free option of using people to mine it or merely machines alone, which would you choose? Business would dictate using the machines. Efficiency would dictate using the machines. Reliability would dictate using the machines.
I didn’t say anything about them being an all out threat. But they are hardly efficient about a lot of things, hence industry itself - iow humans - are deciding to replace humans already with machines. That intelligent machines might draw the same conclusion . via simple analysis of output, for example - seems not at all strange to me. I don’t know where you get the idea that using simple programs is dictated even now. Sure, if you can choose between a simpler program that does the task as well as more complicated ones, well both AIs and humans are likely to choose the simpler. But right now we all use unbelievably complicated programs to do similar tasks and this is going to increase. Treating humans as resources is precisely what corporations do now and likely will want AIs to do later. Once they are seen as resources, which can be described in numbers, they will be evaluated through performance and other mathematically represented indicators, and these will likely lead AI, just as human run corporations decide this kind of thing every day, to conclude that robotics and AI can work better/cheaper. These decisions may not always be correct, but trend is alreayd in place, it is already happening. Just as they would, in a heart beat, replace, say, plants and animals as food sources or sources of power, if they can come up with something better - see genetic modification or plans to grow meat directly or the replacement of horses as a major means of transportation and so on. They are replacing pets right now with robots, and sure, given the current technology, most pets are still organic. But more people have robot pets, so the need for organic ones, that market, it already being cut into. As technology increases more organic resources are going to be replaced. No reason to think humans will not be, since this is, as said, already happening.
Do you now answer the question whether machines will completely replace all human beings more differently, perhaps even with „yes“?
Let’s have an interim result for the question: „Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?“
[size=140]We have 67% for „yes“, 14% for „no“, and 14% for „I don’t know“.[/size]
[size=140]Hey![/size] This result is different to that result I determined in the other machine thread with the question: “Will machines completely replace all human beings?”:
Okay, the question “Will machines completely replace all human beings?” is not like the question “Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?”. Probably the two results are different because there were other and more viewers of the other thread than of this thread. So we have to wait for more results.
Please vote!
Personally, I think that it’s very unlikely that humans will be entirely replaced by machines. In order for machines to do that, they’d probably have to be conscious, self-willed, purposeful entities like ourselves. Consciousness is (to put it mildly) poorly understand; my own view is that it’s linked to the self-organizing properties of life. In this analysis, a conscious machine would look an awful lot like an artificial organism, and might well not count as a machine at all.
What seems much more plausible is some kind of post-humanism. That is: humans as they are now will be replaced (wholly or partly) by entities that are partly biological human and partly machine, with the biological part being substantially genetically engineered. Such entities wouldn’t be machines, but they wouldn’t be humans in any meaningful sense either- they wouldn’t think like humans, and if they looked like humans it would be because they were designed that way rather than through necessity.
Yes, that is one of the possibilities wih a high probability. The other is that the machines will do it. I estimate that the probability that machines will completely replace all humans is about 80% (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
The real reason for the difference, is, that the former poll asked a logically determinative question, a yes/no type, where the binary system predominated.
In the current poll, it is based on an inductive type of logic, because as soon as you put a question in terms of ‘how likely is something to occur’, then probability functions set the stage for evaluation. In this type of inquiery, the range will include far more variables such as brought up by including hybrids of many kinds, perhaps even cyborgs into the equation. There will be lower numbers caused by the number of possibilities being higher, and spread out on a more extended matrix. The number of people viewing them also effects the difference, but, that may also be due to the attraction to the difference in titles.
I wrote: “the question ‘Will machines completely replace all human beings?’ is not like the question ‘Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?’.” Both questions are yes/no types. The first question refers to a possibility or probability in the future (“will …”), and the second question refers to a possibility in general (“is it possible that …”), thus accentuates the possibility.
You probably should have worded that as;
“Is it possible for machines to replace all of human?”
I did and do not want to ask whether it possible for machines to replace all of human, because that is already a specific question. I wanted and want the question to be a general one. If I had asked more specifically, then the answers would also be more specifically, and that was not what I intended with my question.
If machines will have taken over, then the answer to the question why it was possible that machines completely replaced all humans will not only be “it was because of the (ability of the) machines” but also and mainly “it was because of the (ability or/and unability of the) humans”.
Perhaps the fololwing pictures can illustrate what is meant:
[size=170]Friendly (?):[/size]
1.) Humans have been having enough time for it for so long (see above) and have been being decadent for so long.
2.) Many (probably all possible) things came, come and will come together in that case.
.__ So the machine replaced the rest, replace the little rest, and will replace the very little rest of human arts.
[Quote]