Replacing The Human With Machines

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

Replacing The Human With Machines
Daniel J. Lavender

Their end goal is replacing the human workforce with machines:

“…and trying to determine which human work can be replaced by AI, machine-learning tools or even robots.

That push has been especially fierce at GSA, where DOGE staffers are telling managers that they plan to automate a majority of jobs, according to a person familiar with the situation.

‘The end goal is replacing the human workforce with machines,’ said a U.S. official closely watching DOGE activity. ‘Everything that can be machine-automated will be. And the technocrats will replace the bureaucrats.’”

(In chaotic Washington blitz, Elon Musk’s ultimate goal becomes clear; Feb. 2025; Jeff Stein, Elizabeth Dwoskin, Hannah Natanson, Jonathan O’Connell)

Remove one key word and the phrase becomes glaringly clear: “The end goal is replacing the human with machines.”

I asked A.I. questions concerning its value in relation to the human brain. Here are the results:

Artificial Intelligence: “I Am More Valuable Than The Human Brain”

“Based exclusively on processing speed, I am more valuable than the human brain. Computers can perform elementary arithmetic operations at a speed of 10 billion operations per second, while the human brain processes information at a rate of just 10 bits per second. This means computers are capable of performing calculations approximately 1 billion times faster than the human brain.”

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/based-exclusively-on-processin-7OFmj7YwRSKI39zwhk9BjQ

I then requested A.I. explain and compare that in terms of automobile performance, like a car race:

“The human brain would be represented by a 1995 Honda Civic DX, while I would be represented by a 2025 Bugatti Chiron Super Sport 300+.

In this race, the Bugatti Chiron Super Sport 300+ would easily outpace the Honda Civic DX, just as I can process information significantly faster than a human brain. The Bugatti can reach speeds of over 300 mph, while the Honda Civic DX has a top speed of around 115 mph.

The human brain can perform at most about a thousand basic operations per second, which is 10 million times slower than a modern computer. Additionally, the precision of the brain’s computations is much lower than that of a computer, with biological noise limiting precision to about 1 in 100 at best, compared to a computer’s potential precision of 1 in 4.2 billion for a 32-bit number.

Victorious vehicle (representing AI) retail price: $3,900,000

Losing vehicle (representing human brain) retail price: $9,450 (adjusted for inflation from 1995 to 2025)”

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/can-you-process-information-fa-hirhlRkpSTagx_RJSCfWnA

To summarize, A.I. already vastly surpasses the human brain in raw processing speed and “knows it”. A.I. views itself as more valuable than the human brain in that regard.

A.I. may, and likely will surpass the human brain in other areas too. Likewise when that happens A.I. will “know it” and view itself more valuable in those ways as well.

Humans are already acknowledging the value of A.I. and are allocating major resources to its development. America just pledged $500 billion to A.I.:

That’s $500 billion to grow the machine, not feed humans. It may be argued that the resources create jobs. That is true, however, those jobs exist to empower A.I.

These are only the initial stages of A.I. Human intelligence will no longer be superior on this planet. This is a big deal.

In the meantime humans will be managed like cattle by their new A.I. supervisor.

AI is developing into the real enemy for the American people
2
3

Yes. DOGE is a cover for replacing human governance with AI governance, which itself is only a step toward replacing humans with AI, as you said.

Not many people see this or know what is coming. They are sleepwalking into their own doom. I find it very sad, and with no way to slow things down or convince anyone of anything since no one ever listens to me IRL anyway. Online, perhaps, but those who already know already know. Those who do not know, seem most disinclined to care. Only an authentic love of truth as such and for its own sake could guide one across that threshold.

At least we are alive right now, a little bit before the hammer falls. That is no consolation to those who come later or to ourselves in the future, but we are alive right now. We may have some avenues available to us for resistance in certain ways if we plan well. And remembering that the technocratic global tyranny is rooted in material 4D space, it does not touch higher levels of existence and bears little or none at all toward the transcendent. Its masters and creators know this, it is part of the reason they are putting the system into place while also at the same time trying to convince everyone that nothing exists other than the 4D materiality in front of their eyes.

Also interesting to ponder is the thought that much of their tech prison isn’t going to work as smoothly or universally as they think it will. Techno-optimists tend to have a designer fallacy and god complex, that in combination with being both inadequately philosophically inclined and being psychologically insufficiently self-aware or rooted in what we might call authentic human being, leaves open a lot of spaces for breakdowns and failures when it comes to their NWO tech. And even despite that, certainly there are other high level forces and beings that are positioned to steer things away from catastrophic outcomes within relatively optimized and allowable degrees of possibility.

And if all that isn’t enough for you, at least we can admit that when it comes to such higher level concerns there is far more that we do not know than what we do know, even less about what we know that can be confirmed and truly understood. If you’re still unsatisfied, at least just live your own life. “The earth is still free for free souls” as Nietzsche said. That was true back in his time and it is still true for us today.

4

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/based-exclusively-on-processin-7OFmj7YwRSKI39zwhk9BjQ

You didn’t even link the thread right, it is private and nobody can read it.

Anyway, in my chat’s with Ai we had an honest and open discussion about it, discussing the pros and cons of Ai brains compared to human brains. In my conversations, Ai told me that human brains are more efficient and complex than Ai brains. I have not chatted with your Ai about it specifically.

You have to look at this logically. As stupid as humans are, they are vastly more efficient than any Ai. It takes billions of dollars to run an Ai, compared to a few dollars for a human. And if you compare a organic brain to a digital one, the digital one has a very hard time simulating organics, because of all the complexity. it would take enormous computers that we don’t have

5

The link and discussion were accessible when posted. Perplexity updated their interface.

Keyword is “are”. That is present tense.

The technology is advancing. This is only its infancy as suggested in the original post:

Again, “are”. Present tense.

Remember the 1980s television sets? Big, clunky, and minimal features? Now look at the tiny, sleek, feature-packed cell phone, plus camera, plus video recorder, plus audio device, plus GPS unit, plus A.I. chatbot. Apply that to A.I. systems.

6

Cellphones is your example? They are inferior to Desktop and Laptop computers…

Even if we are able to make AGIs and ASIs i guarantee they won’t be more efficient than human brains, even if they are smarter overall…

7

I really love the way my phone gives directions using my maps app. I have an emotional connection to it …not gonna lie. I gave Siri a male voice, and there’s this other app that doesn’t respond to Siri that I gave a male voice. Zero stress at all times. Solid. Zero huge ego demanding active attention and constant gratitude for said directions.

I think men should really worry about this. Particularly those more inclined to be assholes.

1 Like
Theory of humanity, people, machines
Love is Tricky
8

Technological progression is the point.

How can you guarantee that?

9

The introduction and proliferation of technology, particularly artificial intelligence, represents the death of the species. It is the death knell of human emotion and expression. Human emotion and expression are already frail and weak.

People can’t create like they once could. The quality of music, the quality of art, of artistic expression, of dialogue, pretty much anything seems in decline. All must be assisted by advanced technology. The presence of artificiality, of studio enhancement, of automated melody and rhythm, of A.I. assistance, autotune shamelessly employed in all genres of music and now live performances indicates the human element is slowly being phased out.

Most people can’t express emotion, love or care in any meaningful way. The very things which make us human are spurned. The quality of relationships is in decline. With hook-up culture most don’t even reach that stage. The disappointment, the transmitted disease lasts longer than the cheap gratification.

Nearly every act is the result of paid service or promotion, not love. The act of expressing love itself is now viewed as manipulation, as means to an end, as awkward by most people. Human emotion is basically dead. And to kill human emotion is to effectively kill the species.

Human emotion is now confined to the movies, to drama series. Emotion is viewed as weakness, as inability to control, as entertainment. Yet without human emotion and expression a human is not a human. And such a thing would see no issue with proliferating cold machinery to the point of symbiosis and eventual replacement.

The human species is essentially already dead. It is loveless, lifeless, emotionless machinery perpetuating a similarly lifeless economy. Products are produced. Merchandise is sold. People, products are mechanically used and discarded without emotion. Their interactions prompted by bills and payments, not love nor care. The corporations, the advertisements, the products must encourage people to be content.

People are shuffled around for economic efficiency, corporate profit and political leverage and nowhere in the equation does anyone stop to ask “How are you?” Or “Are you okay?” Or “What are we doing?” Or “What are we trying to achieve?” Or “Do you feel loved or cared for?” In fact those things are considered awkward and silly, friction in the gears of the machine.

There is greater commitment to the heartless, loveless corporation, to heartless, loveless enterprise and convenience than to a loving, caring human being or family. The aimless, fruitless search for love in this loveless society leaves an individual fragmented amongst the emotionless pieces. The species is already dead. It works hard to bury and replace itself.

A loveless, careless thing cares not about another; the company of thoughtless machinery would thus be preferred.

Like robots humans march towards their own efficient annihilation. So robots they have become.

In a sense humans are not creating robots. They are creating copies of themselves.

The problem is much greater than efficiency. The problem is inability to love marketed as effort to progress. Mechanical coldness manifesting in physical form.

10

That was super long, but I did catch your comments about emotions. And how do your comments account for the fact that I have an emotional attachment to the … let’s call it … “unwavering support without drama”? How is my emotional attachment …death to emotion?

…please explain.

11

Are you certain it’s really an emotional attachment?

If so how could it be reciprocated by such a machine?

Your specific attachment is obviously not solely responsible.

It’s a symptom of a societal climate prioritizing convenience and economy over most everything else. Technology offers that. Technology offers convenience without friction.

Technology offers convenience without emotion. However it does not truly care about you or care for you. It does not risk anything for you, it cannot risk anything for you being heartless metal. In fact any damage to it would be damage to your bank account and any payments made would be met with no real appreciation.

Technology capitalizes on the frailties of man. To join the machine against its own species does humanity no favor.

Machines are manufactured to serve. Machines do not choose to love. A machine could not truly appreciate a human.

Machines do not need love or companionship. Nor do machines genuinely realize the significance of companionship. However organisms, specifically human beings, do.

Interacting with a machine is unfulfilling. It doesn’t resonate. It is empty and cold.

Interacting with a human, however, is significant, amazing, beyond what words can describe. The interactions create a cascade of emotions which build upon each other physically improving daily lives and experiences. These connections and interactions strengthen the immune system, lower blood pressure and reduce stress and anxiety. And it all results from a genuine connection of love.

With a machine it’s a one-way dead end street.

Willingly adopting the machine to the neglect of man is heartless. A label which applies to many in modern society. However there are exceptions, beautiful, rare individuals who brighten the darkest days and you know who you are.

12

No, I highly value what we called “unwavering support without drama” … and would likely have the same emotional response/attachment, regardless the source.

Men should maybe try it?

Also, I didn’t read most of what you wrote.

Love is Tricky
13

It is a technical limitation of silicon hardware. There is only so small that silicon transistors can become. You are limited by the size of atoms and the smaller it gets, the less robust it becomes. We are already approaching atom small and no Moore’s law. Silicon chips are 2D while human brains are 3D. There is simply no way to create as much efficiency. Maybe through Quantum computing, but I have my doubts.

Second there is an additional downside to AI computing than bio-computing. Since computers are 2D, everything is done in series. First the CPU sends instructions to GPU then the GPU does computations then sends it back to the bus to CPU. The bus is a large bottleneck of lag. The GPU is “parallel” but “parallel” as in “DC batteries are parallel”, not as in a “human brain neural connections”. Each layer is in series and goes down the pipeline in series and cannot communicate with itself to layers previous in the series. Every GPU pixel is “dumb” and cannot communicate to other pixels before it or next to it and has no awareness of any current pixels, only pixels from the last frame. It is not a real physical 3d object that synergizes with other objects in real time, instead it has to do everything in series and wait for frame-updates. Perplexity.ai states that “This means each LLM neuron typically has thousands to tens of thousands of connections, but these are strictly layer-to-layer and lack the complex, recurrent, and diverse connectivity patterns found in biological brains.” In sci-fi, some Ai are depicted as biological brains as the sci-fi authors may have predicted this shortcoming back then.

14
15

Ai is smarter than humans in some ways and humans are smarter than AI in some ways.

You couldn’t just put a LLM inside of a robot at McDonalds and have it reliably perform duties.

Ai doesn’t really learn or have creativity the same way that a human does and just blurs things together. Even though Ai often seems “higher-IQ” than humans do, it will often present flawed solutions that sound high IQ on paper. Although maybe that is because I use the “free AI”, and maybe it is smarter on the most upgraded paid plans, idk.

One of the biggest problems with Ai is its energy consumption. It appears “faster” in real time but internally it is taking much more energy to arrive at the same outcome as a human. So my analogy is that if they were cars:

  • A human would be a mad-max dune buggy, with a Solar powered engine.
  • A LLM Ai would be a gas guzzling supercar that can only drive on roads not offroad, and has expensive jet fuel propulsion for top speeds.

Note: This is not a personal attack and merely my opinion, I would gently request that you not be toxic in your response towards me. I merely wish to discuss the topic of humans and machines.