Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Yeah. Sometimes one has also to be careful when translating from French into English.

 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.

Interestingly but not surprisingly, the oldest generations and the youngest generation are seldom told anyway.

This fact reminds me of the following one of my posts in this thread:

In future all generations are seldom told. The end effect will be the redundance of all humans. They will not be needed anymore.

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.

That is pretty much the plan, “Destroy all that is not me! Then I will be God.

Yes, but in the end the Godwannabes will probably lose against the machines.

Not so! MACHINES CAN NEVER BECOME INNOVATIVE! Men will win out, because Faust’s trick!

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.

Machines have been designing new machines since the 1980’s
Try again.

And machines can adopt any strategy that a human can, including altruism (if it sees a reason to). And “emotions” are merely subtle strategies.

And even if so, who is to say, that a man maybe a superman will not come along to up the ante?

It has been predicted!

I hope so too.

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.

Oh okay, so let’s fling ourselves off a cliff because there is a chance that superman will fly by and save us. It’ll be fun!!

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.

Supermen have occurred in periods of extreme and perilous change in the past. There is no reason to conclude they will not re-occur again.

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.

Remind me to never allow you to pilot my plane. :confused:

Let me give you a simple example:

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”.

Sure, the humans that made them were being rational.

As long as you don’t mean something that parallels the assertion machines are angry. (IOW that the adjective describes qualities and capabilities of the machine) That construction in English, with the word ‘rational’, implies not something about the purposes the makers had, but the qualities of the object in question, here a machine.

Humans created machines, but I would not say that machines are creative.

Or

A man created a scupture out of a pile of rocks. The pile of rocks is not, however, creative.

Some scientists might make a bacteria for specific purposes. The scientists may very well have been rational when they made it. The bacteria however is not rational.

It’s a weird thing to say, unless one is making claims about the mind of the machine (or bacteria or pile of rocks) - that it is capable of reasoning.