Last year I raiseddd this issue with the CEO of a major corporation. His firm pioneered in the Artificial Intelligence applications field. Their first application eventuated in replacing the telephone operator.
It turned out that she [or he] - the person who usually took your call and directed it to the party with whom you wished to speak] was replaced by a roomful of “customer service representatives.” …a boiler room full of people.
His response to my query was (regarding the issue) “It’s overblown.” He is a man of few words. The next application his company went into is automating the 'know your customer ’ process. They promote using AI instead of bothering to get personally acquainted with your customers.
The rationale behind his response is that computers are dumb: in the sense that they only do what is programmed into them to do… Someone with an evil mind can command a supercomputer to “Buy up all the staple machines and staplers in this world, and use this billion-dollar fund to do it!” The computer will find a way to carry out the order. But some people will decline to sell their stapler. This will ten to thwart the program. And/or people will devise a new technology to fasten or bond papers together, thus dispensing with the need for staple guns for that particular purpose.
Such a project as this, though, is a far cry from replacing humans altogether
Not necessarily. The problem is both broader and narrower. Broader in the sense that l human beings will not be replaced, , and narrower for the ones replaced will be merely those whose function has been become obsolete, by virtue of possessing a required extended memory.
That the process of obscolecence may or may not impede into the arena of cost of production, needs to evolve into more uncertain territory.
As ceratain jobs loke farming requieeing minimal memmory, wi hypotheticay demain more cost effective.
Machines will treat them as we do farm workers today, fruit picking is less costly then machine picking.
That the ultimate consideration of machine es developing more benign of less harmful characteristics, remain in the future annals of discovery.
Who expected, when we still had horse-drawn carriages, that someday automobiles, airplanes, helicopters, rockets, space shuttles would be driving around, and that the Internet and artificial intelligence would prevail? Almost all horses have been replaced by machines. And humans have never been considerate of humans in matters of power. So why shouldn’t it be possible to replace all humans? After all, many have already been replaced anyway? And why shouldn’t it be possible for machines to become independent of humans (in this thread this possibility was affirmed in principle by Arminius and James S. Saint). Humans want to control machines, yes, but so far they have always failed with their attempts at control. And humans want to controll other humans. Now, draw the conclusion from this, please.[tab][/tab]
The human of the future shall be the artificial human. The humans have always tried to make themself different, somehow „new“. But this time it is a serious matter. Our consciousness shall have to learn to understand itself as the consciousness of a machine, as a made and yet in its factual being uninterruptible, self-contained Dasein.
The human of the future shall be the artificial human. The humans have always tried to make themself different, somehow „new“. But this time it is a serious matter. Our consciousness shall have to learn to understand itself as the consciousness of a machine, as a made and yet in its factual being uninterruptible, self-contained Dasein.
Microcomputers (nanobots) the size of a cell are supposed to improve our brain function (probably even when we don’t want them to!) This is to explore the brain, scan synapse by synapse, transmitter by transmitter, and be able to copy a brain.
Virtual spaces are created with such microcomputers. Billions of nanobots will be sent into our brains as artificial neurons, attaching themselves to every single nerve cord coming from our sensory organs.
“When we want to experience real reality, the nanobots hold still. For the virtual reality experience, they cut off the supply of real stimuli and put artificial signals in their place.” - Ray Kurzweil.
It seems the prevailing strategy is proving to be - eliminate the encumbrance - replace the less harmonious with the more harmonious - replace unserviceable with the serviceable - manufacture the servant to design specifications from the ground up as soon as possible -
[list]And eliminate that which doesn’t serve.[/list:u]
Humans are already machines albeit genetic ones simply through the process of serving programmed functions without much thought for anything else. As humans this usually gets transcribed into some higher imagined purpose which actually serves no function at all except wishful thinking. The counter question would be can a machine become what a human is supposed to be? After all, just like a machine, humans are just another assembly of various entities.
If a human is supposed to be a machine, then the answer to your “counter question can a machine become what a human is supposed to be?” must be “no”, because a machine is already a machine. A machine can perhaps become another machine but not a machine, just because of the fact that a machine is already a machine.
What about me? I am a human machine who’s beginnings is OS in either one ; a machine or as a human, an entangled unfigurable mix, where only a quality can set this confusion straight.
The defining quality of what implies humanity, is sought on a progressive matrix, in fact how could one differentiate between a material brain and a spiritual mind? Or is inconceivable to earn such an off thr cuff
distinction without a priori supppositions , so the twofold encomompassing. of brain/mind be ever unify into a whole?
Once, when that distinction is eliminated, then the fear that accompanies program model’s over or under specifications will normalize functional
integrity.
True if humans considered themselves as machines if only as organic ones but they don’t hence the distinction inherent in the OP Will machines completely replace all human beings? Per it, humans do not regard themselves as machines believing it more probable to have been created by some divine entity instead of the extremely impersonal forces of nature having slowly assembled us replete with a multitude of malfunctioning subroutines.
The machines invented by humans are not humans, even in the case when it is tried to interpret the machines into the humans or the humans into the machines.
The difference between human and machine will narrow via preduction to an apprehensive phenomenological transversal, making the difference between them neglichable. As more transcription will overcome these differences, they will need not become even noticeable until the primal human connection becomes critically deficient.
This will be the minimal alogarhytm that the whole sequence can be proposed to operate under.
At this minimum over ride, the difference should and will become as an over ride system.
The ethical utilization will prefincturalily become a scripted absolute. Violation will override the automatic systems, so that the order of sequencing will obey the pre ordinal sequencing.
The cybernetic ethical principles will need to build that into the system by default.
I think humans are genetically designed to primarily defend themselves. They cooperate with others as a part of that strategy. They have no inspiration to cooperate unless they see their personal need.
Do you really want machines designed the same way? That is what it would take to make the machines simulacrum of humans.
Currently the effort is to make humans more genetically cooperative to their own sacrifice - to be the simulacrum of machines.
I could envision a combination of both efforts - anything to please and serve the overlords (who eventually get replaced as well).
But what is the real purpose in humanity manufacturing it’s own replacement? Who does that serve?
[/tab]
