Will machines completely replace all human beings?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Meno_ » Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:21 pm

I am a fatalist, or better said, a determinist. If you buy a Hegelian development scenario, then, as the future which has been described many times over, is to be believed, thenthe outcome is perhaps almost inescapable.


I am not as optimistic as some who categorically present an absolute need to escape planet earth
within a thousand years. Reminds me of the saying,
'Live your life as if it was the first day of our life, and the last.


As the virtual world closes us in into an imaginary landscape, in stead of escaping, we must act now to create much more utility in the world.


Specifically, we simply must bring back style at any cost, even impoverishment can be done with style.

Art needs to return in a big way into the ghettos, the poorer the more stylish, the more significant it becomes. Now is the time for the extreme liberal 1%
, instead of demonstrating for another form of escapism -session,, as that motion was recently financed by a home grown Billionaire in California, they should grab the bull by it's horns, and with other
privileged people, work within the system statewide,
to counter Federal moves to further disenfranchise.

That would be a good beginning. And perhaps become a model for other states, after all California is one of the most, if not The most significant state in the union,
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7594
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Tue Nov 22, 2016 12:56 am

jerkey wrote:I am a fatalist, or better said, a determinist. If you buy a Hegelian development scenario, then, as the future which has been described many times over, is to be believed, thenthe outcome is perhaps almost inescapable.


I am not as optimistic as some who categorically present an absolute need to escape planet earth
within a thousand years. Reminds me of the saying,
'Live your life as if it was the first day of our life, and the last.


As the virtual world closes us in into an imaginary landscape, in stead of escaping, we must act now to create much more utility in the world.


Specifically, we simply must bring back style at any cost, even impoverishment can be done with style.

Art needs to return in a big way into the ghettos, the poorer the more stylish, the more significant it becomes. Now is the time for the extreme liberal 1%
, instead of demonstrating for another form of escapism -session,, as that motion was recently financed by a home grown Billionaire in California, they should grab the bull by it's horns, and with other
privileged people, work within the system statewide,
to counter Federal moves to further disenfranchise.

That would be a good beginning. And perhaps become a model for other states, after all California is one of the most, if not The most significant state in the union,

Why are you so fatalistic? Although, realistically said, it is not a good beginning if human beings are not needed anymore.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:44 am

:) this is funny...

Can you imagine computers on an Internet forum discussing "Will biological life supplant all computers?"

There is AI all over the cosmos ... And they're just like us.

*chuckles*
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11025
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sat Nov 26, 2016 2:11 am

The modern science is an Occidental science and has conquered the whole world. So even if the genocide will be continued and finally completed, the techn(olog)ical results of the Occidental science - especially the machines - will be there, and then it will depend on the Non-Occidentals or the machines whether science will be continued or not.

Maybe science will "die" in the same manner as Faust in the second part of Goethe’s tragedy "Faust".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Only_Humean » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:02 am

An interesting development int he field of translation:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... late-with/

Slightly sensationalist headline, but an insight into the working of neural networks.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:19 pm

I could make an Ai better than any scientist could. I just dont for ethical reason, don't know if a soul will enter a computer machine.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:13 am

Only_Humean wrote:An interesting development int he field of translation:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... late-with/

Slightly sensationalist headline, but an insight into the working of neural networks.

Thank you for the information. Do you think that it is a "giant leap"?
Last edited by Arminius on Sun Dec 11, 2016 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:20 am

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling said that nature casts up its eyes in the human being. So I am saying that culture casts up its eyes in the current phase of the Occidental culture, which means the trend to transhuman beings.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Only_Humean » Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:14 am

Arminius wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:An interesting development int he field of translation:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... late-with/

Slightly sensationalist headline, but an insight into the working of neural networks.

Thank you for the information. Do you think that it is a "giant leap"?


Not really, I think it clarifies that symbolic "thinking" (quotes due to vaguely-defined words) can be an emergent property from algorithmic programming. I don't think there's likely to be a big leap, though, so much as small steps that make it harder to agree on what machine intelligence entails and where we draw legal and moral lines.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

Only_Humean wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:An interesting development int he field of translation:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... late-with/

Slightly sensationalist headline, but an insight into the working of neural networks.

Thank you for the information. Do you think that it is a "giant leap"?


Not really, I think it clarifies that symbolic "thinking" (quotes due to vaguely-defined words) can be an emergent property from algorithmic programming. I don't think there's likely to be a big leap, though, so much as small steps that make it harder to agree on what machine intelligence entails and where we draw legal and moral lines.

I agree. But do you think that the capabilities of machines are overestimated at the present time?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Only_Humean » Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:36 am

Arminius wrote:I agree. But do you think that the capabilities of machines are overestimated at the present time?


By whom? I'm sure many capabilities are underestimated by many, and many overestimated too. What's the most important group to consider - the common understanding, the understanding of policymakers, that of technicians, that of the shadowy cabal running the world? :)
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:45 am

In my opinion, machines have already to a good extent replaced human being. We are all expressing our natures hooked up to this web, we're 'online', and recent studies have shown that a majority of people are more disturbed by lack of wifi than lack of sex or even to a point food.


Human beings have not been replaced, but integrated in a nonhuman, perhaps supra-human web of interwoven human drives and effort.


On the OP's issue I'll say this: it is certainly not cheapness, economy that makes species dominant: rather the opposite -waste, excess, capacity to squander and still come out on top. Look at who and what rules now and has always ruled. The peacocks tail 'paradox', aka self-valuing.

In as far as mechanical beings may or may not become dominant, I dont believe they can attain joy, thus neither the desire to become dominant; I think that discussion is irrelevant to the future.
What is deeply relevant is fighter-machines. As we've seen, "terminators" are being built, not in walking, but in flying and most scarily in dog-form.

That's real, barbaric countries may be controlling their populations with invulnerable machinal dogs. Scary prospect.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:33 am

Arminius wrote:Do you think that it is a "giant leap"?

It isn't (perhaps not even a new anything).

Translation machines work by translating a source language, A, into a intermediate machine-use language, iX, then into the destination language, B, C, D....
A -> iX -> B and/or C and/or D ...
or
B -> iX -> A and/or C and/or D ...

If paying attention, a translation library between B and C can be constructed merely by translating enough from A-iX-B and from A-iX-C such that the associations between C and B become so obvious that iX is no longer needed when translating from B to C or vsvrsa. Such is hardly new technology other than to have Google do it on the Net.

Fixed Cross wrote:I dont believe they can attain joy

Machines that produce a conscious from a subconscious certainly do.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:08 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:I dont believe they can attain joy

Machines that produce a conscious from a subconscious certainly do.


What kind of machinery would be able to do that?
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Tortis » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:16 am

Only_Humean wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:An interesting development in the field of translation:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... late-with/

Slightly sensationalist headline, but an insight into the working of neural networks.

Thank you for the information. Do you think that it is a "giant leap"?


Not really, I think it clarifies that symbolic "thinking" (quotes due to vaguely-defined words) can be an emergent property from algorithmic programming. I don't think there's likely to be a big leap, though, so much as small steps that make it harder to agree on what machine intelligence entails and where we draw legal and moral lines.


Hi Only,

An algorithm can't think. Thought is an aspect of consciousness, an algorithm isn't the kind of thing that could be conscious, for one thing an algorithm is itself a thought, a concept in our minds. Computers like the ones we are using now should be considered in this context as representations of algorithms, representations of our concepts. The same applies to the computers/programs in the article you kindly linked to.

There really isn't any question about where we draw the legal and moral lines, and the computer programs described with such breathless enthusiasm and naivety in the New Scientist article do nothing to change that.

Computers will never have the moral or legal status of humans because they can't feel, see, hear, think, understand. They aren't conscious. And they haven't become any more conscious as the result of the programming described in the article.

Computers can't do human style translation because they can't feel, see, hear, think, understand. To take a specific example, you can't understand what "good" means in the appropriate way unless you can feel things like toothache, orgasm, disappointment, joy. This applies throughout human language, because language is essentially based on experience.

The article concludes with this quote:

“To match this human ability [i.e. translation ability], we have to find a way to teach computers some basic world knowledge, as well as knowledge about the specific area of translation, and how to use this knowledge to interpret the text to be translated,”.

The speaker here knows there's a problem, but he doesn't realise that this is an insurmountable barrier to human-level translation by computer. The basic world knowledge he is talking about can only be gained through experience, through consciousness, feeling, seeing, hearing, and that is something a computer can never have.

I find it fascinating but also a little scary that so many people seem to believe that computers are moving towards consciousness, and that they might have legal and moral responsibilities.
User avatar
Tortis
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:21 am

Technotards will scheme ways to integrate their robots into society more and more, knowing full well that they lack sentience, like the robotic cars that are now driving around without a human directly handling its operation. These technotard's robots will assume human jobs without sentience which is an unspoken F.U. to humanity, you will be displaced and directly controlled by your own choice by inferior machines. The "smart" people are excited by all these techtard developments, but it will be the average and underaverage folks who will have to rebel against tincan terminators and their technotard inventors.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7756
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Tortis » Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:15 pm

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:Technotards, techtards


You seem to be excessively fond of these terms, but I'm afraid you are misusing them.

Techtard
A contraction of "Technological Retard"
Technological + Retard = Techtard
Someone who is so "technologically challenged" that they shouldn't be allowed within a 10 mile radius of anything electronic.

Technotard
A person who has a significant conceptual, behavioral, or intellectual impairment that makes it impossible for them to understand or use even the most rudimentary of electronic devices.
Jack can't even program his remote control or the speed dial in his cell phone--what a technotard!
User avatar
Tortis
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby surreptitious57 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:01 pm

Machines may not yet have replaced humans but we are already slaves to technology. Social media in particular and the internet in general never close down
I can spend up to twenty hours a day in front of my computer. Even when I do manage to switch off it is usually only for a few days before I am back on again
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:33 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:I dont believe they can attain joy

Machines that produce a conscious from a subconscious certainly do.


What kind of machinery would be able to do that?

Pretty much any AI that I would design. An AI gains a "subconscious" by first having to juggle it's own priorities and then by not being able to sufficiently accomplish its goal. The most efficient use of mental capacity then requires a division between what you call a conscious and a subconscious. The "conscious" portion builds a completely different imagery to represent the surrounding reality, including the urging to attend more to this or that issue as directed by the original priority juggling. Since those urgings are separate from the conscious, perceived as "remote" from the conscious yet within oneself, they are sensed as "feelings"; joy, hate, love, depression, frustration, ....

A social example would be the advent of activist groups in Congress. An AI properly formed, similar to Congress, would naturally form its own activist urgings (the priority juggling) so as to persuade the Senate (the conscious). Those activist urgings are what "emotion" is.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby nano-bug » Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:41 pm



This half-time is lasting eons.
Highly adaptable. Yes. Wait! What? Yes. He, herself, is a head fuck. Well, will you look at this little train of thought?
User avatar
nano-bug
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:35 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby nano-bug » Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:48 pm




Had an epiphany and a climax and a mental spike when this song came on while playing grand theft auto.

Divide. And conquer. For the sake of the whole.
Highly adaptable. Yes. Wait! What? Yes. He, herself, is a head fuck. Well, will you look at this little train of thought?
User avatar
nano-bug
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:35 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby nano-bug » Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:57 pm

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:Technotards will scheme ways to integrate their robots into society more and more, knowing full well that they lack sentience, like the robotic cars that are now driving around without a human directly handling its operation. These technotard's robots will assume human jobs without sentience which is an unspoken F.U. to humanity, you will be displaced and directly controlled by your own choice by inferior machines. The "smart" people are excited by all these techtard developments, but it will be the average and underaverage folks who will have to rebel against tincan terminators and their technotard inventors.


R I S E
Highly adaptable. Yes. Wait! What? Yes. He, herself, is a head fuck. Well, will you look at this little train of thought?
User avatar
nano-bug
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:35 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Tortis » Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:34 am

nano-bug wrote:This half-time is lasting eons.


I haven't watched this video although it looks like it might be amusing, but it doesn't look like it will be about machines replacing human beings? So that was disappointing in a way as I had been hoping to discuss that. But you do have 3000 posts, I assume you don't just post irrelevant links or you'd have been banned(?) so is there some philosophical content in the vids? Or are you just feeling relaxed?
User avatar
Tortis
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby nano-bug » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:19 am

My posts were only loosely associated with machines completely replacing all human beings. The fact that only some lyrics contained in those songs do connect to some leap-frog logic, is on me. Then again, it is the half-time show. Like . . . metaphorically . . . as to our timeline in human history . . . In relation to our mechanical relations ... and the star we call a sun's age . . . damn, that's convoluted.

Stop. I'm an asshole.

I want to be the first bionic man. Symbiotic re . . . la . . . . tion . . . .ship. Can you hear me say that to you over this?

So NO! Machines won't replace what is destined to dissapear, change, evolve, re-create, anyway, no.

I'm hungry for pre-man ape meat, which by the way, is what has added to my asshole irrelevancy. And oh by the way, ban me please. But delete the threads I asked to be deleted first, pleeeeease.

Yes, I am relaxed. Thank you for asking . Bleep Bleep Bloop.
Highly adaptable. Yes. Wait! What? Yes. He, herself, is a head fuck. Well, will you look at this little train of thought?
User avatar
nano-bug
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:35 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby fuse » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:23 am

Tortis wrote:Hi Only,

An algorithm can't think. Thought is an aspect of consciousness, an algorithm isn't the kind of thing that could be conscious, for one thing an algorithm is itself a thought, a concept in our minds. Computers like the ones we are using now should be considered in this context as representations of algorithms, representations of our concepts. The same applies to the computers/programs in the article you kindly linked to.

There really isn't any question about where we draw the legal and moral lines, and the computer programs described with such breathless enthusiasm and naivety in the New Scientist article do nothing to change that.

Computers will never have the moral or legal status of humans because they can't feel, see, hear, think, understand. They aren't conscious. And they haven't become any more conscious as the result of the programming described in the article.

Computers can't do human style translation because they can't feel, see, hear, think, understand. To take a specific example, you can't understand what "good" means in the appropriate way unless you can feel things like toothache, orgasm, disappointment, joy. This applies throughout human language, because language is essentially based on experience.

The article concludes with this quote:

“To match this human ability [i.e. translation ability], we have to find a way to teach computers some basic world knowledge, as well as knowledge about the specific area of translation, and how to use this knowledge to interpret the text to be translated,”.

The speaker here knows there's a problem, but he doesn't realise that this is an insurmountable barrier to human-level translation by computer. The basic world knowledge he is talking about can only be gained through experience, through consciousness, feeling, seeing, hearing, and that is something a computer can never have.

I find it fascinating but also a little scary that so many people seem to believe that computers are moving towards consciousness, and that they might have legal and moral responsibilities.

Interesting post, and welcome (back?) to ILP.

Tortis wrote:The basic world knowledge he is talking about can only be gained through experience, through consciousness, feeling, seeing, hearing, and that is something a computer can never have.

Computers can technically feel, see, hear, and even sense phenomena that we can't via any number of electronic sensors. Their potential on that end is almost as limitless as imagination. But you might ask whether they can sense in the same way that human beings do. Another question is do AI need to apprehend the world like a human? Many creatures experience the world with sensory systems that are radically different from ours. And the most fundamental question seems to be: what is consciousness?

Tortis wrote:To take a specific example, you can't understand what "good" means in the appropriate way unless you can feel things like toothache, orgasm, disappointment, joy.

Do conscious beings need to share the same biological idiosyncrasies for each to have a concept of good?

I think there is a long and bumpy road ahead of us with respect to AI, and I do not yet think there is one inevitable outcome.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]