Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Arminius, the column with the least subscriptions who think machines will take over ALL human beings, are the ones not in agreement with the view, that it is possible to overcome the machines, even in an exponentially progressive growth in technology.  I am using overcoming at once in a probabilistic sense of 'how likely can such and such occur' at the same time using the philosophical (Nietzchean) of 'overcoming.  Nietzche tried to overcome the romantic pessimism of his day, and i think with this ontological-probable split, the pessimism (as almost an idiom by now) of probability over  view point is hindered. 

The pessimism shouldn’t be ascribed to those members who were in the minority column, the pessimism is an affective index, as much as ‘angst’. It is a general measure by which reference can be made toward a future progress.

By “pessimist”, I think Obe meant “doomsayer”.

 Not quite.  There is a difference, and one of the problems with pessimism is that it is so deeply entrenched as a state of mind.  Doom sayer is one who has an absolute resolve on the effects of probable outcomes, while minimizing other qualitative variables in the equation.

You are speaking of a “minority column” and of “the other 99%”, but there is no column with merely 1% in my interim balance sheets - the smallest column has 20.87% (average), so “the others” have 79.13% (average).

Those who are represented by “the minority column” - the “yes”-sayers - are statistically 4.8 (average) of 23 which means that they are 20.87%. The “no”-sayers are statistically 10 (average) of 23 which means that they are 43.48%. And those who belong to the “abstention” are statistically 8.2 (average) of 23 which means that they are 35.65%.

|=> #

4.8 • 100% / 23 = 20.86956522%
10 • 100% / 23 = 43.47826087%
8.2 • 100% / 23 = 35.65217391%


23 • 100% / 23 = 100%

_/

It wasn’t the average or majority who started the world wars. It was a minority, a particular minority and the exact same minority, even more powerful now, instigating THIS devastation. And their prior “off buttons” that they didn’t use don’t even work any more. They can no longer stop what they started. And neither can any majority (who could never stop anything anyway as they are the sheep).

Actually it SHOULD CATEGORICALLY BE AN AVERAGE. 80%+99%=179% : 2=89.5% (all things considered.

Or do you mean the 99% who are facing the 1% globalists, Obe?

??? What “SHOULD BE…”??

I messed my figures up.
In the 99-1 % split where 1% has control and clout and 99% do not, based on a hypothetical that only 1% think that machines wouldn’t replace human beings , (or couldn’t say it) as a possibility or, as an ad op, and in Arminius’s table, over 80% wouldn’t suppose it, there is a difference of 79%.the actual average within this formula would be 80%+1%=81% : 2= 40.5%.
i think this is a fairer representation, of course hypothetically contingent on the 1-99 split of public opinion. That this split has been contested, is not taken into consideration. So ilp would have a higher percentage of people disproving the premise, that ilp opinion may be representative of across the board consensus.

There is no implication here that ilp opinion is somehow more relevant than a general census would indicate.

To say that 40 percent would have opinions that machines would not take over, is more credible than 80 %. The average is a factored albeit in a very crudely functional use of overall sentiment.

The concern is widespread among the population as a whole, and more and more people are concerned about automation displacing ‘obsolete’ jobs.

The second premiss, which may be questioned , as to whether the 'occupy movement’s data’s value, is based on an equally shallow supposition, that those 99%, who feel underprivileged in some way, would all have opinions which reflect their total fear of automation, again hinging on the sub premiss that holders of non artificially produced capital, comprise of a very small minority, who are the primary movers behind automation.

Nevertheless, and regardless of the very general use of statistics, a correction is wanted as to shed light on more ‘realistic’ distribution.

Again:

If we add the middle column (43.48%) and the right column (35.65%), then we get as a result 79.13%. That are the not-“yes”-sayers.
But if we add the left column (20.87%) and the right column (35.65%), then we get as a result 56.52%. That are the not-“no”-sayers.

Relating to the thread question, the realtionship of the “yes”-sayers (20.87%) and the not-“yes”-sayers (79.13%) is really interesting:

According to the Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) 20% of the population own 80% of the land, 20% of the pea pods contain 80% of the peas, 20% of all clients cause 80% of all sales, 20% of all websites are the goal of 80% of all weblinks, … and so on. This 80–20 rule is roughly followed by a power law distribution (also known as a Pareto distribution) for a particular set of parameters, and many natural phenomena have been shown empirically to exhibit such a distribution.

Relating to the thread question, it could be interesting, if the Pareto principle applied also to the „yes“-sayers (20.87%) and not-„yes“-sayers (79.13%), as I already said.

 Arminius: the question of statistical analysis here, relates to wider a wider scope.

Some of the tangential considerations involve a wide array, if the OP could conceivably be pulled together. Your introducing Leibniz into the formula and then Kant, brought in a question which can not really be solved ontologically, as to whether one, or the other has relevance here.

If, we would follow Leibniz, variable functions would/ could question any sort of equivocal synthesis as suggested by the above breakdown into the 20-80 distribution. Kant would serve here a better purpose, and i am not trying to play linguistic games, only to point to a wider data set, then is used within the confines of ILP.

I brought in the occupy movement, since they have been portrayed as a disaffected and disenfranchised group, more likely to have strong feelings about their place in society vis-a-vis, such issues as the use of machines to replace traditional jobs.

A correlation there, would certainly would not parallel a similar 99-1% breakdown , between those who believe in the issue of whether all machines will replace jobs, i am sure that not all 99% would believe this. The correlation may if, averaged out via a synthetic statistical analysis, would maybe bring the figure more in line closer to an equivocal difference.

My attempt is two, or even three fold.

One, to clarify which methodology and philosophy would be more appropriate in the application
Two, without undermining the notion of 20-80% distribution, only to point to the insufficient ethno-methodology, as per applied statistical analysis -of the ‘Kantian-synthetic’ sort, and more
relevance in terms of Your proper introduction of Leibniz into the scheme, (so Your original
application of Leibniz was correct. However that correctness would undermine the idea that
the least will determine a correct outcome) Although a synthesis of this sort demands a wider
Inquiry, it would not reflect a statistical offset of other variables, such as would occur, if the
difference exceeded that of the analysis per members of the forum.

These variables would be, different values of opinion in different sets, different numbers within the same sets, etc.

If 20% of the occupy movement believed that machines will take over , then we may incorporate (there goes that word again) that with 20% of ilp members, in that case, both, the synthetic (or the non academic) statistic would correspond, resulting in the type of statistical schema, as suggested.

However, if there is a wide divergence, of say less then 99% to more than 1% of the sampled group, a synthetic solution would not work, because the variability of opinions of the occupy movement would need to be factored into the equation.

Some of those variables may include questions dealing with why do disaffected think, in spite of their dissatisfaction that machines are not a threat to their future employ?

Now You may think am working against my own theme, of trying to raise the percentages of those, who may be disaffected and think that machines take over. Not so. Your formula of 20-80 will work on the synthetic level only if, it is narrowed down to a set consisting only of mebers of ilp.

This may have been the reason, whereby we were unable to come to a conclusion as to whether which philosophical approach is more relevant.

As trite as this critique seems, and as fuzzy the set theory involved appears to be, i feel it is of central importance to clarify, even without getting Humboldt, Marcuse, or any other thinker involved. I think language analysis here irrelevant, as not being in the statistical matrix, of determining the methodology, if ever such a study would be taken as relevant, to real social movements, apart from a strictly ad-hoc research into an ‘Ivory-tower’ type of inquiry.

There is some sense of the superfluous here, an excess, a surplus value, and if You feel it goes beyond the scope or intent of Your OP, i would be happy to see a general response.

A sub-set question here would be, ‘how representative are ilp members of the general population?’ I would think this question is again, another variable, dissuading a general ‘synthetic’ solution.

Ultimately, although not needed in any sort of statistical analysis, what would the effect be of the results, of both, the inherent value of holding conventional jobs and, the ethical burden of employers to defer automation to a prior study of employer-employee relations, as they effect the over all social economic picture. There may be such going on, at present, but not to the degree, that it has become common knowledge.

For the third consideration here, i think it’s contingent upon the first two, and , once derived, would have a feedback effect, in case the multi variable schema becomes most determinative.

The numbers in the tables (interim balance sheets) are quite meaningful; they didn’t change very much even over a longer period of time (this is especially true for the left column):

[list]|Will machines completely replace all human beings?|
|
|_ Yes (by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention ___|

[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]3[/size] |_ [size=150]8[/size] |_ [size=150]3[/size] _______|
|_____ [size=120]21.43%[/size] | [size=120]57.14%[/size] | [size=120]21.43%[/size] |
[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]4[/size] |_ [size=150]8[/size] |_ [size=150]9[/size] _______|
|
_ [size=120]19.05%[/size] | [size=120]38.10%[/size] | [size=120]42.86%[/size] |
[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]6[/size] | [size=150]11[/size] |__ [size=150]9[/size] ________|
|
_ [size=120]23.08%[/size] | [size=120]42.31%[/size] | [size=120]34.62%[/size] |
[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]5[/size] | [size=150]11[/size] |__ [size=150]9[/size] ________|
|
_ [size=120]20.00%[/size] | [size=120]44.00%[/size] | [size=120]36.00%[/size] |
[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]6[/size] | [size=150]12[/size] |_ [size=150]11[/size] ________|
|
_ [size=120]20.69%[/size] | [size=120]41.38%[/size] | [size=120]37.93%[/size] ____|

[size=120]Ø[/size] : |______ [size=150]4.8[/size] | [size=150]10[/size] |_ [size=150]8.2[/size] _______|

  |_____ [size=120]20.87%[/size] _____|_____ [size=120]43.48%[/size] ____|_____ [size=120]35.65%[/size] ______|

[/list:u]

The question how representative are ILP members of the general population are can be answered with: MUCH; and there is the fact that some of them have a deeper relationship to philosopy than others, some of them have even an indifferent relationship to philosophy, some of them love philosophy, some of them like philosophy, some of them dislike philosophy, some of them even hate philosophy (cp. my thread: “Do you really love philosophy?”). So it is quite representative, Obe.

You forget how one applies philosophy. To know the philosophical teachings from ancestors is one way, to learn from life is another, to do both is another. Most of the people that consider themselves philosophers are book literate, not life literate.

Yes, that’s right.

I was referring to Obe’s question:

According to that, I don’t think that it is important to go into details, and you probably know: the devil is in the details.

In addition: I do not know all ILP members; so I have to extrapolate their relationships to philosophy. My statistical tables (“interim balance sheets”, as I call them) should give only an orientation, not more. :slight_smile:


By the way:

You joined ILP on 22/12/2005. If you didn’t change your “avatar”, then the cat which is seen on it would be “not very young” anymore:


Lovely.

She passed away this week from autoimmune disease. Odd that you mention Screamer a day after she passed. Life has interesting and sometimes painful twists. But I thank you for posting her photo. See on this phone Avatars are not shown. That photo brought good memories though tinted with tears.

Maybe it’s telepathy that I mentioned your cat. I’m very sorry that you cat is dead.

Do you have any more cats?

Before we deviate too much from the topic, here is a cat buying fish from gumball machine.

I like that picture. Yes we have other cats, plus dogs, goats and poultry. All but, the poultry are family. We have never thought of them as pets, just four footed kids.
Believe it or not, quite a few of our cats hate fish. :slight_smile:
You know, would a thinking AI if programmed empathize with creatures? Or see real beauty in life? Could a bio AI have more probability of empathy? … Just to try to stay a bit on topic. :slight_smile:

Could giving a machine literature on life create a difference even one programmed to find and kill enemy? What if it learns human ethics and morals?

Being an occultist, i cant but notice the devolution of the OP into the feline ‘category’. Incidentally, one of my favorite songs of all time was Stewart’s ‘Year of the Cat’.
I am at the moment feeding a stray, who has been on our doorstep since she/he? was abandoned by her mom, but i can’t see a cat born in the wild, ever appreciate us more, than showing up predictably every morning for her morning kiddles. I am trying a very patient pavlovian conditioning with her, by placing the food-bowl ever closer and closer to the door, but she seems wise beyond her years, she/he? is ever more increasingly careful and circumspect, raising her head and turning around to check any- thing unusual within her frame of reference, while orbiting her ears to check for any unusual auditory clues.

I have had two ferals move happily into our home. It just depends upon the personality or (and I really lean towards this one) wether the feline is diurnal or nocturnal. Diurnal cats seem to be more social and need socialization ( generally). Nocturnal tend to loners.
If the cat shows up only mornings or evenings it will be more nocturnal. Canines are this way to a fair degree as well.