Will machines completely replace all human beings?

The only possible benefits of robots is sex bots obviously.

Sex bots?

And:

Do you agree?

Possibly, the machines will prevent the extinction of all human beings, or they will not prevent but accelerate it.

If the machines will become smart enough, then they will need no cages for the humans.

Mercedes Self Driving Car Recreates World’s First Car Journey Mercedes S Class 2016 CARJAM TV:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiiNHHXugyo[/youtube]

No self driving cars:

Daimler, 1886:Daimler_1886.jpg
Daimler, DMG Lastwagen Cannstatt, 1896:DMG_Lastwagen_Cannstatt_1896.jpg
Volkswagen, VW Käfer Cabrio:
VW_Kaefer_Cabrio.jpg

Do you think that machines will “eat” the crust of the planet?

I don’t believe there to ultimately be a shortage of materials, reusable grown materials like carbon crystals and organics will replace metals and plastics.

We and machines will be replaced by something which is conscious and infinitely adaptive. Think skyrim, where bodies/forms/machines are the things the characters/consciousnesses beget, and can change and hop in and out of. There may not even be ownership et al! The difference between one thing being better that another is thence interchangeable, just like getting in and out of a car.

Intelligent existence needs something like subsistence / sustenance.

Okay, thus also the mantle and the core of the earth. :astonished: :open_mouth: :-k

Earth.gif

Why sex bots? Because women are becoming less female and desexualized with cultural or political social engineering along with an increasingly socially alienated male population. That’s why I think.

But if “women are becoming less female”, as you say, are men then - according to your belief - not changing, or are they becoming less male or even more male?

edt; Women are perhaps less female because the illusions of them have faded, so now we see a person and not a doll. I preferred them as dolls, but the world keeps turning and eventually strips illusion away.

it does, and when that is fully a utility ~ bodies worn like a suit, then its a question of what suit is best for the given tasks, rather than a requirement for a battle between ai and humans.

that doesn’t mean AI wont still try some shit on of course.

Who will win the battle according to your opinion: AI or humans?

Now, guess whether machines are capable of replacing all three types of humans.

Arminius

I don’t think there will be a battle. An intelligent being would see human all history with all that it has achieved including artistically, and that humans created them. Now, I can see a perspective by which virtually e.g. any art could look in some sense animalistic, or otherwise a product of a lesser mind, and that a bit of nature and geometry here and there probably wont impress AI/robots. Yet I think the artist is nearly always equally seeing that, then there are other salient features not least metaphor and on to the incomprehensible elements generated by the art. Maybe AI will see those features also, and if not it would know it is missing the point ~ a failure on its part. I think however, that it will see that, and consider it so that humans and AI con both do as they will. Why is there a problem with having more and not less of everything? Unless we are provably degenerate in comparison, and then I would just see humans as the means to AI and its own end. IF!

To that question, i’d say that duality is the engine of creation, and without it, one doesn’t invent. It is more likely perhaps that the human/AI society will have to deal with people on the periphery, whom are the product of said duality. As with human society you get extremes e.g. psychopathy, and so if robots have dualistic minds such to draw comparisons and weigh up dangers [= a function of intellect], you will also get extremes in them especially given equally dynamic minds.

_

Arminius.

I agree with the above, and the crux of the matter lies in the fundamental nature of intelligence it’s self. Machines , if they are to approach a ‘conscious’ level of understanding, will need to re-connect with the ‘sense’ of that artificiality in order to gain understanding. They can push this approaching sense of artificiality into their sense of 'sub-conscious mind, and deny the genesis of how their consciousness came to be, or deny that, and pretend that their own understanding of the genesis of their understanding was never ‘artificial’ and Created in that sense.

But at that point, both denial of the cognitive construct and the sense within it was staged would become untestable, since both: sense and sensibility would become indistinguishable to the super intelligent artificial intelligent machine.

I’d say that it would be hard to determine the ultimate winner of such a conflict as it would inevitably boil down to equality of thought processes, of strategies and tactics, philosophies, reasoning, brutality, etc. At the very least, if machines were to ‘win’ they would lose and such loss would only be able to be felt over a long-term period of time as they came to understand what could have been if they had only been able to act differently, know more than they did at their start.