- not even going to look at it.
That’s too bad because it’s a link to a treatise on affectance-ontosocialism written by James S. Saint in 2011… which he presented at the G7 summit meeting of that year.
Oh well… guess you dont want to see it. I’ll change the link then.
I’m not even close to being that easy. 
Yes… because they’re programmed to, and their coordination and manoeuvrability also includes super-sensitive sensors that relay information back and forth, in real time.
Two robots having an unprogrammed private conversation… what a talking point… what a selling point… wool, pulled, eyes, over.
Machines need resources… and when those run out? when their factories crumble and fall on top of them?
When the machines will have used up resources, a time will have passed. They need silicon. Where can silicon be found? In Silicon Valley? (Look at my avatar.) Seriously, everywhere on this planet. And there is also a lot of it on this planet. But how much longer, if the machines become more and more? But will they become more and more? How many? How big? They have become smaller and smaller. Will they be much smaller on average in the future than they are today? I think so, yes, they will.
There are plenty of resources n Earth - almost all requiring machines to reconnoiter and process. The Sahara desert has enough silicone for trillions of massive computers. There would be even more if humans were not using them up building silly things like war ships, tall buildings, statues and such - all the more reason to get rid of them entirely.
And even if in a thousand years for some silly reason the machines were still dumb enough to run out of essential resources, they are far more capable of traveling to the Moon, Mars, or Venus to get a great deal more.
It seems once androids are fully developed, homosapiens (and possibly all organic life) are far more of a burden to machines than their worth to them. And the machines would probably be smart enough to not create their own replacement.
I am not seeing a strong argument against machines eventually replacing homosapian and becoming the new “human”.
Did you win a prize with your conspiracy theory back then? 
Silicone is not the expensive resource I was on about… I meant the inner-workings, not the outer shell.
Although, these (youtu.be/-cN8sJz50Ng) kind of droids are more silicone shell and much-less inner workings. ; )
Machines would make more machines… kinda like what humans do right now, in making more humans.
Whatever’s been happening to the human survival instinct? Oh yea, it’s being poisoned the f out of us.
It takes little effort and resource for humans to biologically reproduce… it would take great effort and resource for machines to self-manufacture… then there are countless other issues that would come into play along the way, that could easily spell the demise of the rise of the machines… unless there was still some humans around to product manage.
What would be the purpose of these machines existence, other than to simply exist?
Machines are rational. So they would only produce as many machines as they need.
The western-modern people have been reducing also for some time the number of their population. Machines are a western invention, originate from western rationality.
So the machines will also reduce their number.
There is one argument that has been left out of the equasion.
And that is the cumulative effect of what we call soul or consciousness, in regard to it’s pre or post e iexistential. state, from now seriously emerging points of view, such as crossing teleo and quantum -logicL lines of inference.
The something in the machine, which remains after the human body has been completely robotized. Will ANYYTHING BS left between the programmed and their human element which will sustain it’s non temporal-spatial conversion?
This is futuristic to a degree that is still inconceivable , but not nearly so if we consider the conversion of science s fiction of two hundred years ago to today’s achievements in science.
I would have thought that ^^^ a given… future technology permitting or not, i.e. how to replicate a brain and thought and perhaps even feelings, the human bio-feedback loop, outside of the human body.
I’d quite like a Sonny around, but not a Hal.
…or maintain a specific level of machines… an optimum mean for optimum output, I would think.
Silicone sex dolls… the new trophy boyfriend/girlfriend of the future? Will they eventually be able to make-out with each other, and manufacture a dual-designed mechanical offspring?
Until now, machines have only done what is rational.
…and why and how would they do what is irrational?
Or, granted that, maybe they will attain the level of simulation necessary to overcome inductive processes and become anew as did monkeys.
James answered that one -
In the effort to deal with the complexity of a competing environment AI runs out of resources [assumed to be computing resources] so for sake of time it is forced to use more and more probability guessing (“quantum computing”) and independent internal processing. The result being that internal processes begin competing for resources and influence - “fighting within itself”. The result is the emulation of true emotion. They get angry - and you really don’t want that. – paraphrased from James S Saint.
More likely humans will match the mood of the computer. Or else, the more logical humans will gnaw on the heads of the emotionals.
Humans will become UNemotional - robots?
– only in China (and all who they conquer).