Will machines completely replace all human beings?

NO. It is NOT how the French „revolution“ started.

NO. YOU are talking about something completely different fom the OP because you are always only talking about political and social issues which belong mostly to the past and to the presence, maybe even to the nearest future, but not to that future what my OP is talking about.

You are talking about „revolution“, „revolt“ „rebellion“, „out of work“, „workforce“ „working class“, „starve“. You are changing my OP in a primarily political „DP“ („Different Post“). You think of „revolution“, and „socialism“, or „communism“, and believe naively or optimistically in the competence of workers.

You don’t know whether they know or not know because the topic of this thread and the OP refer not to the presence, but to the futue: Will machines completely replace all human beings? . That’s the theme, the title, the topic of this thread and what’s the OP is all about. And the topic of this thread and the OP is no „revolutionary“ combat organ with hate campaign. No. The OP refers to the future and tries to find out whether machines will completely replace all human beings.

So you should stay on track, keep the OP in mind, remind yourself of the topic of this thread. :slight_smile:

If they effectively revolt, then Machines will not replace them. So he is discussion what he considers will prevent the replacement which is on topic, since it argues for an answer to the title of the thread.

Primarily it is a technical, economical, and last - but not least - a philosphical question. it has very much to do with rationality, not so very much with wishes / desires. Secondarily it is also a politcal and social question. Of course. But both questions do not refer very much to the past and to presence, but very much to the future.

One should not confuse the meaning and importance of the first question with the the meaning and importance of the second question.


Please follow the link above, and you will at first read a question. A question! And although I am asking this question, I have hopefully the right to say something different, something which differs from the question and tens to an answer.

And why do I “have to detail for me a timeline of events … (etc. pp.)”, and you don’t have to explain anything, although your statements are full of errors and lead - with the utmost probability - to conclusions which are false and not good for you and your descendants? Furthermore I have given evidence for my arguments. For example: Machines are cheaper than human beings, machines can be controlled very nuch easier than hunans, machines don’t rebel, the current machines are alraedy able to learn and also in some cases alraedy part of human bodies, machines will capture the human bodies and probably - I don’t know exactly, therefor the question in the title of the thread and in the OP - take over. I don’t have to go in details because you can raed them in my posts of this thread. So please read my posts of this thread, If you are really intersted in my arguments and their evidence.

But what about you? You don’t have to detail and so on? Are you God?

Your arguments can hardly convince. So please explain them and detail a timeline of events.

Try to convince the people who don’t believe in social revolutions, in socialism, communism, and other totalitarianisms!

Machines will never be able to replace humans completely on their own, for some inevitable reasons.

Yes, there is a possibility that human race on this planet will eliminate himself either by a huge war or trying to machinize humans by planting some sort of chips in the brain or other mechanical parts somewhere else in the body in order to improve human efficieny, both mentally and physically.

A human is a complex order or system. If it is forced to accomodate too much change and too rapidly, it is possible that the whole system would collapse, instead of improving.

Though, in that case, even if the human race is eliminated, there would not be ever any rule of machines.
And also, the human race will stem out again from the remaining biological life forms, if there were left any and that enviornment would permit.

with love,

Sorry, but I am not very much convinced. :wink:

Well, I have noticed that since the time I posted that video on ASIMO, it has become “Private” and thus you are not allowed to see it. Within that video were scenes of a Japanese workplace preparing for the day’s work by doing mandatory calisthenics. Just behind a row of such employees was a row of ASIMO robots, doing the exact same movements along with the other employees. Of course the employees were all smiling and expressing joy that they had such companionship. It was a part of Japan’s technology propaganda. The video also included a few new American commercials for businesses to replace workers with much cheaper androids - currently available. Along with this commercial and many others;


And then from the University of West England you have this;


More from Japan (there is a new contest between Japan and the West to produce the best androids);


Rise of the Machines - Michio Kako on the subject of future “timeline” speculations concerning machine take-over;


“Honda kept it a secret for 10 years”, no doubt so as to get ahead of the game before the competition took over. Now H7 can “play ball”. The military has hover craft and land craft that can find their own way through all kinds of obstacles and maintain cooperative order between the drones automatically, “swarm robots”.

The military now prefers video controlled drones so that the controllers are sitting back at home, merely playing a video game. And a war between drones is much like a chess game. Who is the current chess champion? - a computer.

From your History Channel;

…1942 German Goliath terminator robot and the infamous UAV, “Predator”, in 1975.

And now DARPA is facing the decision of “at what point we ARE going to give autonomous killing authority to androids”.

For an even better “Timeline”, you already have this in public domain;

Living machines, fighting for their survival, autonomously;

Ever heard of “A Fish Called Wanda”? I bet you think it is just a movie title. It was an MIT confidential project to produce an artificial fish, called “WANDA”. How many fish in the world do you think are artificial? How many insects?

Why would human produce millions of artificial fish and insects? Well obviously surveillance. And what happens immediately following all forms of surveillance? Strategic action.

You think it isn’t cost effective to build millions of such things. But they are being built by robots and they are very small, made to be inexpensive.

On Mars are intelligent roaming devices (more sent ever couple of years) that cannot afford to wait for instructions from Earth. They make their own decisions. They learn and deal with what they encounter. They have no choice. “If we don’t do it, they will”.

Saddam Insane’s Red Army was whipped out primarily by Hellfire missiles fired from drones declared illegal years prior. So what do you do when a government doesn’t allow you to use your advanced tech? You give them a reason to open the door (9/11). Now through DARPA, even civilian surveillance drones are being armed with weapons and a small amount of AI.

The “timeline” is already far ahead of where you can see. What you see on your documentary channels is already out of date by the time you get to see it. Everything you see in those films is already outdated.

Moors Law

And in the mean time, 1/6 of the USA population is already unemployed.

And you might also want to realize that an android face, when designed properly, can rearrange its contour and facial features to match any face that it sees. Upon merely looking at you, an android can replicate your face as its own. Then 10 minutes later, choose someone else’s.

Who needs human spies?

mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschw … uences.htm

Check out item #6 in particular:

Ok, in the future, humans will rebel in response to being laid off and being forced to starve… is that better?

Right, because none of that has any place in the topic of machines taking over human beings.

Who said anything about communism? This is human nature. You get put out of work, you face starvation, you panic. Organized rebellion is just a human instinct made collective–it is the response to the threat of death. You panic at the prospect and you take drastic measures: bloody and violent revolution.

And… why, again, can I not explain my answer to your question? I mean, in your own words, you asked the question: Will machines completely replace all human beings? My answer is no. Am I to refrain from explaining why I think machines will not completely replace all human being simply because I’d have to use the word “revolt” which you left out of the OP?

Oh, so you did.

So that I can, per chance, take you seriously.

All right, that’s a start. My response: that’s not going to stop human workers from rebelling against their replacement.

Yes, machines can learn to a certain extent, but to what extent do you think machines are already part of human bodies? Off the top of my head, I can think of heart transplants, hearing aids, prosthetic limbs… but to the point of being a cyborg or having computer chips implanted in human brains… that’s still too science-fiction for me to believe we’re destined for it or that it implies machines will completely take over human beings.

See, now this is out of the blue. Why do you predict machine will “capture” human bodies. Who’s orchestrating this? Will machines eventually wipe out all human beings on the planet? And how will it have gotten to that point? Why would we have programmed the machines to do that? Are there still human beings in this scenario orchestrating this machine take over? If so, they must remain around and so you can’t say that all humans would have been wiped out.

This is the part that we need to flesh out more. You have given reasons to believe it may be economical to replace humans with machines, and that to an extent machines are being “integrated” into human bodies (although I still think this is an exaggeration given the present state of things), but all this is talk about the present (which you forbade, remember?). Then you jump ahead to some future post-apocalyptical science-fiction fantasy world in which machines will “probably” capture human beings. The gap between the present and this fanciful future scenario is what I need to you to fill in.

Machines are, increasingly utilized, right, and the integration of machine thought with human thought is in process to reach a state of less and less distinguishability between the two. But absolute indistinguishability is impossible, since human thought is an integral part of the machine program. The program is human based and oriented, and it relates to fields in process of unification. There is fast approaching a state, where looking for where the machine starts, and humanity stops will seem redundant, because, there must by definition develop a synergy between them. It is tantamount to worrying about ideas of the self, and realizing that a manageable letting go of the ideas surrounding it, is the cure. The rise of the machines is the production of anti-cogito, discarded Descartianism, the rise of the new man. This process, is necessary, by definition of the new age of communication., Meaning, understanding, perception, are going through a subliminal change, and the effects are enormously challenging. We are living the process, but are unable to grasp it’s true significance. We are in a state of development, utilization comes later.

Never mind. I was expecting that sort of reply.

with love,

Though, there are some metaphysical reasons why machines cannot replace humans, but i will try to argue the case purely in the context of the philosophy of the mind.

The most important point that we use to miss while discussing machines replacing humans is the issue of willingness.

We tend to confuse complexity with learning. Actually, the machines never learn, simply because they do not any willingness to learn. They display or behave exactly how they are fed, neither more nor less.

It is neither the change/development nor capacity to develop that differs humans from the machines but the willingness of humans to do so. Machines certainly have better potential but they do not have any will to evolve. They do not want or desire anything.

To enable themselves to remove/rule humans, willingness for it would have to evolve within machines. But, that is just immpossible. We cannot enable them to will. They take orders from their programming, no matter how developed, complex or sophisticated it may be, it is still an order. They never question/challenge/change their programming. Someone else has to do it for them.

with love,

[size=150]Asimo learning;[/size]

“Okay so when will Asimo take over the world?”
“Oh, I don’t think that will happen.”
“I’m not so sure.”

Hello, Gib.

I do NOT have to check out. Who is Mr. Schwartz? His name is German, but nevertheless I don’t know him.

Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, “revolutionising”? :wink:

That’s not a proof of “revolution”, it is more a proof of NO “revolution”.

Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, “revolutionising”? :wink:

Where did, do, or will do the POOR and STARVING people get their weapons from?

Overnight this poor and starving people became, become, and will become emperors, kings, and - of course - “Gods”?

No, because the question is not what is better than what when it comes to answer the question of the title of the thread , of the topic, and of the OP : Will machines completely replace all human beings?

If you want to discuss the question “what would be better”, you have to answer firstly the question of the “what”, secondly the question of the “would”, and thirdly the question of the “better” (ethics) because you can only answer questions about ethics after you have answered the question of that to what ethical questions refer and after you have answered the question of that what would …, if …

Which sense does it make, when you are counting … 3,2,1 instead of 1,2,3 …?
Which sense does it make, when you are saying “better” => “would be” => “what” instead of “what” => “would be” => “better”?

Please respect the ordered sequence! Please follow it!

AGAIN: Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, “revolutionising”? :wink:

Where do the poor and starving people get their weapons from in order to win their so called “revolution” and to defeat rulers, machines?

It did not, and it does not, and it will not work in that way. I can guarantee you.

You have said “no” - twice -, so what is your problem? Is it because of my “probably yes” (not “yes”, but merely “probably yes”) ?

Not necessarily, Gib, but it would be better because the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP ask one QUESTION: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Probably yes.

You can find the answers in this thread.

The probabiltiy for answering my question (Will machines completely replace all human beings?) with “yes” is not 100%, but it is high.

If so? If not so? They do not necessarily act and react in that way you are assuming. So your premise is probably false, thus your conclusion is probably false too. Try to unerstand how and why human beings “decide” always by their interest, their will to power (Nietzsche), to control anything and everything, anybody and everybody, and - if they have power - their failing of beeing perfect. Human beings act and react very much in the way of trial and error, and even in the moments when they believe in being perfect - in being God(s) -, they usually fail and tend to suicide.

I forbade NOTHING, Gib. AGAIN: I argued logically by referring to the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

I REMIND you: The title of my thread - my topic - is a QUESTION!

You are as much as I invited to give answers and evidence for this answers. Please read the posts in my thread because it contains many answers and evidence.

I am dead sure that no machine would be able to replace humans ever about that but that problem with me that i cannot prove it to others, in the exact way that i want.

Secondly, what you consider the learning of the robots is still their programming. They are not doing it willingly. That is the crux of the issue.

We can infuse as much knowledge and develop the robots as much as we can. They can be very sophisticated in the future, and also, we can programme them to use their knowledge and capacity in the way we like. That is not what i am disputing.

Furthermore, there is a very clearcut difference between an information and a knowledge.
And, this is precisely the point where the whole concept of AI misfires.

The most part of the knowledge requires to go through the process of experiencing the learning. This sense of experience is missing in the machines. And, without this, knowledge is nothing but mere information. So, machines do not have any real knowledge, but the information about the knowledge only.

A very simple but perfect example is the explanation of any color to a blind man by birth. It is simply immpossible. No matter how much information we give to a blind about colors, yet he would never understand what we exactly mean by color. Simply because, the thing that may have enabled him to understand colors truly (eyes) are missing in him.

We can tell him about the all technical detalis of colors and he can remember all that too, yet that does not serve the purpose. The important thing to understand here is that he can still use colors for different purposes, even without understanding exactly what colors mean.

That is exactly how machines use to work.

[b]We can enrich them with as much information as we like and programme them to use that in the way we like, yet they would neither experience anything within them. Because, the ingredient that is essential for experience, is missing in them and that is Mind. And, as they cannot experience anything thus they would not have any willingness ever to challenge thier programming. Means, they would always behave as we want them to behave.

Having said that, still there is a possibility that some insane ( or wise, if one wants to call as such ) individual or a group of those would be able to control the machines to eliminate the rest of the human race. And, it is also possible that, in that process, the ultimate result may be the extinction of the whole of the human race.

But, even that situation cannot considered as machines replacing humans[/b].
It would be the exinction of humans by humans, nothing else.

James, Machines will be machines only, ever.

with love,

No more so than with you.

I can’t count the number of times I have said that exact thing to doctors and women.

That was the whole point in the video. Asimo understood the concept of a chair, not merely the shape.

If you think that is a “perfect example”, then you don’t understand yourself.

Give him eyes with which to relate just like you have and he’ll understand it just like you do… probably better.

Note the past tense.

Coming up, “on the burner”.

And how is that NOT “replacing the humans”?

If humans can become something different than “just-humans”, what makes you think that machines can’t become something different than “just-machines”?

It’s a losing argument, Sanjay. It is already done. You never find out what has been done until it is already too late to change it - true throughout life, but especially when it comes to military governments.

Yes, the French Revolution.

Pitch forks and back hoes, they make their own, they steal them, they get the support of some renegade soldiers or law enforcers. History is rife with examples of how rebelling citizens can get weapons. Weapons come from humans, they invent them, and you’d be surprised at what humans can come up with when under pressure.

Which sense are you making?

Jawohl, Herr Kapitan!

Is answering your question now a problem?

So let me get this straight–you’re actually saying that because you asked a question, all I have a right to do is answer it with a simple “yes” or “no”.

Well, you already know my answer.

Arminius, this thread is 6 pages long. I don’t want to read through all that. Can’t you briefly summarize what your main points and arguments are?

Ok, if you call 0.0001% high.

So you’re saying that even that small elite of human beings who orchestrate the robot take-over will eventually commit suicide because they will be disillusioned about the fact that they’re not perfect and are not Gods. Is that right?

Right, and as such, I am forbidden to give anything more than a “yes”/“no” answer.

with love,

You mean this poor and starving French guys who were not able to construct bow and arrow because they were starving and not able to pay for bow and arrow because they were poor. Gib, they had no money, and they had no power, even no physiological power in their bodies!

So again: If they really had rebelled and “revoutionised”, they would have become food and money for doing it. So again: Who gave them the food and the money for rebelling and “revoutionising”, Gib? Either nobody, so the French “revolution” was a joke, or some of the rich people (the money makers and the aristocrats, so the French “revolution” was a paid war.

All “revolutions” were paid, are paid, and will be paid! The French, the German, the Russian, the “X”, and the “Y” “revolution” were paid, the current “revolutions” are paid, and the “revolutions” of the future will be paid too. Of course!

So you can NOT say that POOR and STARVING people are able to rebel or to “revolutionise”!

“Revolutions” are always made, created, stage-managed, designed, and so on, paid by them who have money, thus power, and interests (more money, thus more power, by “revolutions”, thus by wars, thus by profit by weapons, and so on!). If only the poor and starving people are interested in “rebelling” and “revolutionising”, there will be NO rebel and NO “revolution”, but only more poverty and more hunger, more starving, thus more death!

Just as I said: They are paid. So the poor and starving people just “change” into rich and powerful people overnight. Any weapon has its price, thus must be paid. Any! POOR and STARVING people have NO MONEY and have NO FORCE. That’s logical, that’s even tautological!

So you can NOT say that POOR and STARVING people are able to rebel or to “revolutionise”!

You are not the best friend of logic. Right?

Example: If your child have made nonsense, then you firstly (=> 1) have to know WHAT it has made, secondly (=> 2) you have to know whether and, if so, how the child WOULD act or react in a different case, and thirdly (=> 3) you have to know whether it is BETTER or not. You do NOT punish or discipline your child without knowing the facts of WHAT (=> 1) your child has done, and without knowing how your child WOULD (=> 2) have done it in a different case or not. Ethical questions are not the first ones when it comes to know the situation which is the object of this ethical question. You can not reason or judge before knowing the facts.

Excuse me, my judging God, but this has nothing to do with military, but with mathmatics, especially with logic. So again: You are not the best friend of logic.

How could it? My question is a question. (Remember: tautology). So it is a question for all people, thus also for me. If I answer this question, it can or should not be evaluated differently just because it is my question. You want my question to be differntly evaluated, my Captain Gib. So you want to be the Kapitän, jawohl!

You said “no”, and I said “probably yes”. It is okay, isn’t it?

Yes I can, but you have to do it on your own. I dont have very much time for that and English is not my first language. So it would be better, if you do it on your own. Okay?

Thank you for that joke, but the probability is about 80%, I estimate. So there are 20% left for you. So there is a little chance for you. O:)

So you are saying that you don’t understand what I mean? Are you joking?

You have to interpret it psychologically and mentally (what e.g. are the interests, the intentions, the trials, and the errors?), if you really want to understand that statement. But I think, you just don’t want to. So any discussion with you seems to be very useless.

It is useless to discuss with you. You behave like a child. I have never forbiden anything. The contrary is right: I challenged you, myself, and all the other readers of this thread to give answers and evidence.

And I remind you again: