Note: “Yes (by trend)” means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%. " No (by trend)" means a „no“ as acceptance or agreement of about 0-20%.
According to linguists language is more than merely a “sensing scheme” or a tool of behaviour. And I think the linguists are right. The function you mentioned are existent anyway. But according to many (not all!) technicians, or materialists, or behaviourists, there is nothing existent beyond their technical, or material, or behavioural “world”. And I think that’s wrong.
That’s right.
Human beings are living beings of luxury. Therefore they have such a brain, such a mind, such a language, etc… Machines don’t need luxury. They are merely beings of logic, reason, rationality. But they are able to know what luxury really is.
That’s why medical bills are so high, so that the money will go to the insurance companies (government) and doctors rather than family members. Once the money is used up, the “cost of living” is out of reach, thus death. If family members want the money, they have to take the doctors and insurance companies out of the picture by either not going to the hospital and/or encouraging an earlier death. So either way, you pay in order to live longer. If you don’t pay either family or government/doctor, you are sure to die sooner. It is called “extortion”.
Having money and not paying to live, is making yourself a target. Since the government favors early death (machines are much preferred), people are given incentives, authorities, and encouragement through the concern of money to choose early death.
It is pointless to control all life if one can’t choose who is going to live and who is going to die. From the government stand point, the more death, the better, as long as it is the right people dying (those we have kept money from).
Above and beyond that, is the actual fact, that hospices do, routinely practice euthanasia, based exclusively on the desire of heirs and relatives. The dying person is seldom told.
In this schema, the caretakers, whether be they human or machine, will granted, increasingly will take over. However, it will be am autocracy, and as autocracies go, the conversion of even the human caretakers by machines will ,(if carried that far) will result in the survival of the 1 human caretaker, who will be unable to be unseated, because of the accumulation of his immense power. This power will not allow, machines to upstage him, because, the unique human potential for innovation? Therefore, humans will never be replaced, even if the last remaining human caretaker has;to,destroy all machines in order to gain the upper hand. Then he will grab the most desirable female human and mate her and start the whole scheme. He will be, of course, You may guess who.
I don’t think that humans are as intelligent as you think. You are a shameless chess player, aren’t you, Obe? Machines are better chess players than humans because machines are more intelligent than humans.
A trick is like a sleight of hand, but isn’t all human intercourse like a sleight of hand? The most convincing way to go, is the one most subscribe to? How can subscriptions work if not by fiat of those, who align themselves to a cause most beneficial to them and those they can convince ?
We are all tricksters borne of apes, mimicking one another for most benefit for us, singularly, while proclaiming the others’ benefit? Politics is a trick to get others to do your bidding. Can a machine ever become so altruistic , as to align themselves to the needs of other machines? I rather doubt that.