Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

Most everyone knows what an authentic human experience is. For tests, one has to go through a sort of purifying fire, which considers experience in all its forms, including those that formed you, beliefs , actions, impressed by you by former generations,
which can not be discounted. You owe, by way of karmic laws, and that debt has to be re-paid, at least by not ignoring them.

[WendyDarling]

?

[The_Eternal_Warrior]

We owe by others perception that we owe them. Whether we owe or not is up for debate. To ignore something, anything at all, is to risk bringing on your own head too many things and whether we owe other things or not legitimately, we still have to contend with the fact that some things at the least believe us to owe them some measure of something or another.

[Arminius]

@Amorphos

Arminius

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

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.

_

If there will be no battle, then there will be something like a “perpetual peace”, but that will merely be possible with enslaved humans (probably comparable with the Eloi in the science fiction novel “Time Machine”).

[Arminius]

@Arminius

@Amorphos

We will surpass robots

We will not get rid of the ghosts which we have called for. (Loosely based on Goethe.)

[Arminius]

@jerkey

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.

So you are hopeful?

[Arminius]

@Random Factor

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.

So you are not hopeful?

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

…if they could understand why they acted differently ,
then the sensibility of hope would probably prevail , as the correlation to the senselessness of hopelessness would follow the thoughts of both: humans & machines)

[The_Eternal_Warrior]

@Arminius

@Random Factor

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.

So you are not hopeful?

Expect the worst; hope for the best; in the middle of those two are the most probably realities.

[Arminius]

@jerkey

…if they could understand why they acted differently ,
then the sensibility of hope would probably prevail , as the correlation to the senselessness of hopelessness would follow the thoughts of both: humans & machines)

Maybe.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

@Arminius

@jerkey

…if they could understand why they acted differently ,
then the sensibility of hope would probably prevail , as the correlation to the senselessness of hopelessness would follow the thoughts of both: humans & machines)

Maybe.

Arminius,

I did qualify it by saying : ‘probably’

But maybe that’s not enough.

[Arminius]

Europe’s robots to become ‘electronic persons’ under draft plan:

MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Europe’s growing army of robot workers could be classed as “electronic persons” and their owners liable to paying social security for them if the European Union adopts a draft plan to address the realities of a new industrial revolution.

Robots are being deployed in ever-greater numbers in factories and also taking on tasks such as personal care or surgery, raising fears over unemployment, wealth inequality and alienation.

Their growing intelligence, pervasiveness and autonomy requires rethinking everything from taxation to legal liability, a draft European Parliament motion, dated May 31, suggests.

Some robots are even taking on a human form. Visitors to the world’s biggest travel show in March were greeted by a lifelike robot developed by Japan’s Toshiba <6502.T> and were helped by another made by France’s Aldebaran Robotics.

However, Germany’s VDMA, which represents companies such as automation giant Siemens and robot maker Kuka , says the proposals are too complicated and too early.

German robotics and automation turnover rose 7 percent to 12.2 billion euros ($13.8 billion) last year and the country is keen to keep its edge in the latest industrial technology. Kuka is the target of a takeover bid by China’s Midea <000333.SZ>.

The draft motion called on the European Commission to consider “that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations”.

It also suggested the creation of a register for smart autonomous robots, which would link each one to funds established to cover its legal liabilities.

Patrick Schwarzkopf, managing director of the VDMA’s robotic and automation department, said: “That we would create a legal framework with electronic persons - that’s something that could happen in 50 years but not in 10 years.”

“We think it would be very bureaucratic and would stunt the development of robotics,” he told reporters at the Automatica robotics trade fair in Munich, while acknowledging that a legal framework for self-driving cars would be needed soon.

The report added that robotics and artificial intelligence may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots, raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social security systems.

The draft motion, drawn up by the European parliament’s committee on legal affairs also said organizations should have to declare savings they made in social security contributions by using robotics instead of people, for tax purposes.

Schwarzkopf said there was no proven correlation between increasing robot density and unemployment, pointing out that the number of employees in the German automotive industry rose by 13 percent between 2010 and 2015, while industrial robot stock in the industry rose 17 percent in the same period.

The motion faces an uphill battle to win backing from the various political blocks in European Parliament. Even if it did get enough support to pass, it would be a non-binding resolution as the Parliament lacks the authority to propose legislation.

[James_S_Saint]

They will eventually be granted superior rights to organic persons.

102177 is a lot of views for one thread.

[Arminius]

@James S Saint

They will eventually be granted superior rights to organic persons.

That is very likely.

@James S Saint

102177 is a lot of views for one thread.

Yes, it is. Now the number of the views is 102507.

[James_S_Saint]

No. It’s 102516.

[Arminius]

No. It’s 102517.

[James_S_Saint]

Sorry, I must have read it wrong. Now it says 102531.
It must be a site software problem.

[Arminius]

@James S Saint

Sorry, I must have read it wrong. Now it says 102531.
It must be a site software problem.

A machine problem.

Now it is 102552.

[Arminius]

@Anomaleigh

Some rich people want to kill us all and replace us with machines, but that’s not good, even for them, because they’d atrophy, biologically and culturally.
Machines doing all the work, and allowing us either to be really hedonistic and materialistic, or really lazy, is a curse, not a blessing.
You can have too much of a good thing, everything in moderation, including technology.

Then I ask you, Anomaleigh: Do you think that machines will completely replace all human beings?

[Arminius]

@James S Saint

@jerkey

To my mind the closest analogy I can give, to the first question (out of which the other three flow), is that of a seed. Cosmologically, the consciousness of the world must arise out of the brute, inert matter, unable to realize it’s self without the development of higher consciousness. In a sense, nothing really exists, which can not be perceived. Existence here in Sartre’s vocabulary passes the cogito ergo sum, into the esse est percipii, to exist is to perceive, and that means perception is the predicate to existence.

It can be said both ways, ‘to exist is to perceive’ and existence is the predicate, because existence and perception are so closely bound to each other, embedded into each other.

The really interesting question is, whether there may be inorganic perception, or, preception, where the difference will take maybe another thousand years to unravel.

The fact that microchips are made of inorganic material, but may advance to organic material, shows the narrowing of that difference. Both may be used as analogues, however, and the time for that may be fairly near.

“Perception” requires a degree of complexity beyond being merely affected or affecting. Affect is a “predicate” to existence. Perception is a predicate to consciousness.

And “organic” is merely a class of chemical makeup. It does not necessitate the existence of any other particular attribute or function. The function of perception and the consequential consciousness can be emulated by many things, organic or non-organic. Being organic is merely having carbon and oxygen as the base molecules. Silicon and oxygen can perform the same basic functions and thus can be used to form a living being with perception and consciousness. Many computers certainly perceive and are already conscious to a small degree, ever growing.

I know that we already had this discussion in this thread, but my question is again: How can we currently know for sure that they are already conscious to a small degree?