Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Lev Muishkin]

Simplistic logic has directly nothing to do with QUESTIONS, in my case: with the question in the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP. One can answer the question and argue. There is no problem at all.

You have no counter argument at all, for example this one: "cheaper will not replace all else".

Please search for another thread, if you do not like this one. If you want this thread to be derailed, then you merely show that you are the one who insults himself. You are saying that "the thread is nothing more than hot air", so why you are posting in this thread? Please search for another thread!

Currently this thread has 7300 views and 648 replies. A great thraed, so it's no problem, if you search for another thread. Good bye!

I refer the poster to the remarks I made above.

[James S Saint]

Facial and voice recognition will be required in androids along with internet continuity. Programs on the internet will dictate coordination and priority issues concerning all androids. All people will be monitored at all times and immediately judged by a distant program based on probability of innocence or guilt regarding any and all activity. Questioning of the person is not favored because that tips the hand of prosecution procedures, possible flaws, and adds to the expense involved.

As they openly stated at the UN (ref. Rio+5), "Because this is the world that we want."

[Arminius]

Excerpt from THE DENVER POST, 21st of May 2010:

Toy robot detours traffic near Coors Field.


Is this the first sign of the end of the world?

On Wednesday afternoon, an innocent citizen was walking along a foot bridge, near Coors Field in Denver, when he spotted an innocent looking toy robot, mysteriously cemented to the floor X. Being a concerned and caring citizen who has watched enough Sci-fi films and terrorist news reports, he immediately considered the possibility that is was either; a bomb cleverly disguised as a toy robot, mysteriously cemented to the floor, or part of an evil robot plot to take over the world disguised as an innocent toy robot, mysteriously cemented to the floor. He immediately called the police to report it. This resulted in a stand-off between police and the toy robot as rush-hour traffic piled up around the area. After hours of the robot refusing to make a move, stand down or surrender, the bomb squad was moved in to assess the situation. Unable to safely determine the threat level posed by the toy robot, the experts decided to remotely detonate it. Examining the pieces of the robot afterwards, they determined it was not in any way a terrorist threat. They, however, still have no idea who put the robot there and why it was mysteriously cemented to the floor.


"Don't worry about us, we're just a large, unstoppable army of friendly machines."

Stuff-about.com’s Institute of Far Out Practical Jokes and Robotic World Domination has been working feverishly around the clock to find an answer to this mystery. They have concluded there is only one possible explanation. The innocent looking toy robot was sent by not so innocent looking robots as the first step in a world domination plan. They are either really angry that their toy was so heartlessly destroyed, and will be detonating a small city as pay back, or do not care, in which case they may be more dangerous than we thought. Alternatively they may have expected the robot to be blown up and taken into custody. In this case it is most likely programmed to reassemble itself once it has successfully infiltrated the Denver police headquarters.

From this point, it will be easy for the robots to gain control and begin taking over the world.

Stuff-about.com is of the opinion that it would be a huge mistake to dismiss this as a rather clever and highly successful practical joke.

See original story here.

No panic, that Isn't the first sign of the end of the world, is it?

No, "they" are very beloved. You will soon be fond of "them".

Hear "them" say (again and again):

"Don't worry about us, we're just a large, unstoppable army of friendly machines."

[James S Saint]

Bicentennial Man


Certainly lovable and desperate for your understanding and sympathy.

[Orbie]

But easy to disable/disassemble, if they go out of control. Overrides are a sine qua nonto any machine, PLEASE! (as lovable as they are)

[Arminius]

Some words to the picture and the adaptation of humans and machines:

The similarity between humans and machines is not random. Look at the picture (again):



"Don't worry about us, we're just a large, unstoppable army of friendly machines."

[James S Saint]

But easy to disable/disassemble, if they go out of control. Overrides are a sine qua nonto any machine, PLEASE! (as lovable as they are)

Remember that the next time your car, an airplane, or nuclear generating station goes out of control. You can always just disassemble it, so don't worry. Well, of course in the case of androids, I suspect it would take a secret pass code to stop it from defending itself against hacking into it by the unruly horde of terrorists - You. Are you going to have the password? - No.

[Orbie]

No, not me, but there always will be some some "terrorist" who can do a mission impossible and get the code. There are no full proof systems, especially in an "open" society. Even an anarchic disillusioned general, or president can achieve this purpose. All the U.S political assassinations to date attest to this. There simply is not complete compliance, even the author of this OP presents a 20/80 split. That's far more generous then 95/05. Even a 1% chance must offer hope. I stand fast in the irresoluteness of this issue.

Why do You think that in this late day and age, a North Korean or Syrian madman appears to present such a formidable challenge? Because the behemoth can be severely disabled by the discovery of a very much hidden, yet present achilles heel. Granted Goliath has an extreme monopoly on intelligence, but intelligence is not full proof.

The presentation of this as such, seems to side with David, yet,the alternative of a fallen Goliath, at this stage, presents a rather horrible scenario, much worse than what occurred at the time of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Unbelievable and monstrous anti civilization may betake the world, and all the comfort zones will not offer a shred of sympathetic hearing, except that offered by a hideous and cruel anti christ.

Pray, be it, that the orgiastic phenomenon of the daemon may not prevail. It has happened in key times in the history of the world, and may not, machines in service of evil overcome those of the good. Both , armies of robots of good and evil, may be needed, in the service of humankind, and the apparent notion that it may merely be a struggle consisting of good humans against the evil machines is a misconstrued fallacy.

[Lev Muishkin]

Finally the thread has been reduced to science fiction where it belongs.

It's worth pointing out that in none of the above examples - even though they are ridiculous, do machines ever completely replace humans.
Tools are useless without people.

[James S Saint]

No, not me, but there always will be some some "terrorist" who can do a mission impossible and get the code. There are no full proof systems, especially in an "open" society. Even an anarchic disillusioned general, or president can achieve this purpose. All the U.S political assassinations to date attest to this. There simply is not complete compliance, even the author of this OP presents a 20/80 split. That's far more generous then 95/05. Even a 1% chance must offer hope. I stand fast in the irresoluteness of this issue.

As I said before, I have never said to give up. This is a question pertaining to probability. 1% is not a high probability.

And where in this world are you going to find an "open society"??? In the "Land of the Blind"?

[Arminius]

Human beings build machines, machines produce things and other machines. The machines do that for human beings and instead of human beings and other living beings (for example: horses, oxen etc.). Those human beings who did the same before the machines began to do it did not want to be replaced as workers / wage earners, but as consumers they wanted to be replaced. And what happened? Replacement! The currently workers / wage earners do not want to be replaced, but as consumers they want to be replaced. And what happens? Replacement! This will not change until the completely replacement of human workers / wage earners by machines. So the probability is very high that all human beings will be completely replaced by machines. I have been estimating that that probability is about 80% (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Machines can do human works very much better, they are cheaper, they can be better controlled as human beings (this doesn't mean that machines can be forever totally controlled). Again: The probability is about 80% that machines will completely replace all human beings.

[monad]

Machines can do human works very much better, they are cheaper, they can be better controlled as human beings (this doesn't mean that machines can be forever totally controlled). Again: The probability is about 80% that machines will completely replace all human beings.

As machines become less controlled it may have the effect of forcing humans to become smarter, maybe more human, perhaps less machine like, a condition they often seem forced to emulate when programmed by rules, bureaucracy, protocols, dogma, etc, which may be difficult or impossible to escape from.

The way things stand now he's the biggest fuck up this planet ever faced with no redeeming features that I can see. Just the opposite, a creature of lies, duplicity, hypocrisy all centered in what is considered expedient for the moment at the expense of everything else, the future most of all.

In this universe if you don't have a future it's because you didn't pass the test which may not be such an unusual occurrence for other "intelligent" life forms out there. You came, you saw, you failed...and then you disappeared just as important postmortem as you were prebirth and just as silent. But maybe it won't happen if a combination of genetics and electronics becomes the next step in evolution. One that replaces expediences with priorities and looks to the future in the context of NOW since literally there is no other way to commit to what follows intelligently.

How do we inseminate into the species as a whole the genius it takes to consistently create multiple futures and prove that it has beaten the odds?

[Orbie]

Certainly, not by a determined chain of causally linked events, the sorry plight of a very large portion of the population at the present time. Maybe expanding the mind through imagination. I think virtual reality manufactured by the type of life-scope viewers which make 'being there' , virtually undistinguishable from the real thing. Maybe virtual reality has a function, nevertheless, of manufacturing an pseudo alternate world to alleviate the apparent treadmill of an existence most people find themselves in nowadays. There is no virtual limit to this kind of technology, however, entertainment must never be confused with reality. Rather a virtual necessity to find alternatives.

[Lev Muishkin]

HELP the rate of population increase is declining.

The machines are killing all the babies!!!!!

Oh the Humanity!
FYI

http://www.worldometers.info/world-popu ... growthrate

[Arminius]

As machines become less controlled it may have the effect of forcing humans to become smarter ....

May ..., yes, but currently it is quite the contrary: the average IQ of the world population is sinking, declining.

As machines become less controlled it may have the effect of forcing humans to become smarter, maybe more human ....

Maybe ..., yes, but it depends on what „human“ really means, what „human“ really is, what a „human being“ really is. „Human“ is a ambiguous word, as you probably know.

As machines become less controlled it may have the effect of forcing humans to become smarter, maybe more human, perhaps less machine like ....

Perhaps ..., yes, but it depends on what „machine“ and especially „machine like“ in connection with „human being“ really mean. Is a human being who is less machine like really better than a human being who is more machine like? Or is quite the contrary right?

[LaughingMan]

The delusional thoughts of transhumanists goes something on the lines of this.

Technological innovation replacing our entire existence and being is progress, right?

That's a 'good' thing, right?

Becoming a biological obsolete is progress once civilization merges with machine, right?

*Sighs*

[monad]

May ..., yes, but currently it is quite the contrary: the average IQ of the world population is sinking, declining.

I don't see why you have to increment the same sentence by a few more words when I wrote a lot more than that!
First of all I'm not talking machines in their current state; we were talking about the consequences of machine intelligence in the future accord to your OP.

Anyways this argument "the average IQ of the world population is sinking" is completely misleading. It may be sinking! Why is it sinking? You have more poor and deprived people on the planet who are illiterate or semi-illiterate with more on the way. Of course the average IQ relative to how it's measured, will go down. "Average" is a statistic which defines nothing...and you know what they say about statistics. I have yet to meet the average person as defined by a statistic.

Maybe ..., yes, but it depends on what „human“ really means, what „human“ really is, what a „human being“ really is. „Human“ is a ambiguous word, as you probably know.

Every civilization has it's own ideals as to what is human and what denotes it. Most of those have much in common. Unfortunately we most often fail to become that. But it's not as if we don't have a fairly good idea of what we expect from ourselves and the limitations of our own psychology. This incessant question as to what Human really is or means puts philosophy itself on the IQ casuality list.

Perhaps ..., yes, but it depends on what „machine“ and especially „machine like“ in connection with „human being“ really mean. Is a human being who is less machine like really better than a human being who is more machine like? Or is quite the contrary right?

That depends on both the future of humans and the future of machines and their, I would say, probable integration. In short, we don't know what it "really means" (that phrase again) until we get there. That's the nature of intelligence which is always half blind walking into the future. How can it be otherwise?

[Orbie]

So i gather, Monad is in the 'indeterminate column'?, as well?

[monad]

So i gather, Monad is in the 'indeterminate column'?, as well?

What does "indeterminate" mean?

[phyllo]

May ..., yes, but currently it is quite the contrary: the average IQ of the world population is sinking, declining.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

No, right?

The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day. When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

[Arminius]

Anyways this argument "the average IQ of the world population is sinking" is completely misleading.

No! And you can not give evidence. Without statistics one can say that the intelligence is sinking - that is a fact. This fact can be proved, although merely by statistics, yes, but that doesn't matter because the statistics are an indicator, and an indicator is adequate enough for such trends. You need intelligence, if you want to resist against such a dictatorship we are talking about. Becoming smarter is not enough.

This incessant question as to what Human really is or means puts philosophy itself on the IQ casuality list.

Just the reverse is right. "Human" is a word, so that we can research it linguistically and then philosophically. Philosophers who do not use language are the losers.

That's the nature of intelligence which is always half blind walking into the future. How can it be otherwise?

The "nature of intelligence" (you have said that!), okay, then we can accept the IQ statistics as well.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

Yes, I have. But do you accept statistics and experiences as evidence?

The Flynn effect - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect - has been falsified: too much statistcs ( ).

[LaughingMan]

Bicentennial Man


Certainly lovable and desperate for your understanding and sympathy.

I remember watching that movie as a youngster.

All that stuff is transhumanist cinematic propaganda to make our technological replacement more palpable to the masses.

We'll humanize the robots! Ah, that's cute, isn't it? It's very family oriented, is it not?

[monad]

Anyways this argument "the average IQ of the world population is sinking" is completely misleading.

No! And you can not give evidence. Without statistics one can say that the intelligence is sinking - that is a fact. This fact can be proved, although merely by statistics, yes, but that doesn't matter because the statistics are an indicator, and an indicator is adequate enough for such trends. You need intelligence, if you want to resist against such a dictatorship we are talking about. Becoming smarter is not enough.

I admit to having a problem deciphering some of the meanings in your post.
When you say " Without statistics one can say that the intelligence is sinking - that is a fact." I think you meant to say "Without statistics no one can say...", and from a purely "statistical" point of view you would be right. The problem is it excludes too many other factors to make it realistic. The credibility of the Intelligence Quotient has problems of its own. I must have missed something but what dictatorship are we talking about? Sorry! but I'm somewhat here!

This incessant question as to what Human really is or means puts philosophy itself on the IQ casuality list.

Just the reverse is right. "Human" is a word, so that we can research it linguistically and then philosophically. Philosophers who do not use language are the losers.

How long does it take to research "Human" linguistically or philosophically before a host of meanings and definitions become clear? How often do we have to reinvent the wheel before the meaning behind the word human reveals itself. It's as tedious as that typical and perennial question, "What is the meaning of life?" The definition of Human is NOT described through metaphysics where virtually anything goes. It does not amount to a God variable incessantly probed but never yielding to any conclusion. Haven't we been here long enough and considered that question to gain some comprehension of what it means to be human?

That's the nature of intelligence which is always half blind walking into the future. How can it be otherwise?

The "nature of intelligence" (you have said that!), okay, then we can accept the IQ statistics as well.

I don't understand how this sentence comes together based on what I said or meant to infer, so I can't comment.

[Arminius]

So i gather, Monad is in the 'indeterminate column'?, as well?

What does "indeterminate" mean?

In that text it is because of my question in the title of my thread and the Title of my OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? Obe asks whether you belong to those who answer that question neither with "yes" nor with "no"; so he asks whether your name is or should be in the "Abstention" column in my 3rd interim balance sheet

[Arminius]

I think you meant to say "Without statistics no one can say...".

No.

How long does it take to research "Human" linguistically or philosophically before a host of meanings and definitions become clear? How often do we have to reinvent the wheel before the meaning behind the word human reveals itself. It's as tedious as that typical and perennial question, "What is the meaning of life?" The definition of Human is NOT described through metaphysics where virtually anything goes. It does not amount to a God variable incessantly probed but never yielding to any conclusion. Haven't we been here long enough and considered that question to gain some comprehension of what it means to be human?

You do not have an alternative. You disagree partly, but you have no argument, not to mention an evidence. Why are you against linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions? It doesn't very much matter how long it takes because it takes no longer than the alternatives, if there really is any.