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.
A machine does not have to become altruistic in order to know what “altruistic” means, to conclude, and, according to the conclusion, to decide and act in an “optimal” way. This „optimal“ way is no problem for the machines, but for the humans.
The hope “dies” last. So, yes, we hope and will hope, Obe.
To become altruistic is not to act in accordance to the needs of others, so as to optimize the situation, but it is, to act, in order, to benefit the largest number of other machines/people. People can differentiate between these two types of behavior, but in order to do that, machines would need to differentiate between qualifying and quantifying the varieties of experience. So far, machine have been restricted to the latter, and i do not see any conceivable technological advance to overcome this hurdle.
Consider that is only because you know almost nothing about it. on the other hand, I do. There is absolutely nothing that a person can do that a machine cannot be made to do much, much better, and most, if not all, have already been done. You are very far behind the curve.
It is known that economists should be and sometimes really are rational humans. And what do economist mostly do? As far as possible, economists try to quantify any quality! But it is also known that economists are humans. Machines are much more rational than humans and their economists. Machines are much more efficient than humans and their economists. We count 1 and 1 together: machines are far more rational and far more efficient than humans and their economists; thus machines are also the much better economists.
Technologically spoken, the last two economic crises were caused by machines, although they had got their numbers and data from humans, humans with no idea, but power.
I don’t think any machines are rational. (not that they are irrational.) Their programming may follow logical lines (or not), but rational, to me implies qualities not yet achieved, at least by any publically revealed device. The computers that beat the best chess players still rely on a great deal of number crunching, if they have some guiding heuristics. Rationality, it seems to me includes some kind of overview of context, ability to set goals, choose what to evaluate and what is outside the scope of the issue, set priorities at this kind of abstract level and then move in on the specific question involved. Machines may make good choices that they are programmed to make, but I would not call that rationality, nor is it theirs, yet.
It may come, it may come soon, but I haven’t seen any examples of it.
My personal computer is not in anyway rational. No more so than my toaster, though it can perform more functions than my toaster.
Machines were created by humans because humans wanted the machines to rationally work for and/or instead of humans. Thus the reason for the existence of machines is a rational one.
If humans knew the exact origin, cause, reason for their existence, they would give themselves a name which refers to that origin, cause, reason. You may compare it with the hebrew name for the supposed “first human”: “Adam” = “loam”, “mud”, “clay”; so according to the Bible the first human is originated from loam. Therefore it is appropriate and correct to say: “machines are originated from the rationality of the humans”. Adam originated from loam, machines originated from rationality of humans. If humans were not as rational (or as rationally oriented) as they are, then there would be no machine. And that what machines do is rational (even if they relate to emotions). So one can really say: “machines are rational”.