That merely means that machines are not without a cost, correct? It does not follow from the above that the cost of a machine to perform any given task is less than that of a human. Obviously, it costs to create, run and maintain machines. My smartphone won’t work if it isn’t charged, for example. But compared to what it costs for a man to do the same tasks that my smartphone easily does, it seems to be not much.
They are supposed to work for the designer. That does not immediately translate to “for most if not all humans”. More importantly, they can be designed poorly (in which case they won’t do what is expected of them) and the choice to design them in certain way can be wrong (in which case their existence would be at best useless and at worst harmful.)
That depends on their programming. If they are programmed to survive and replicate even if no humans are around, the decline of humans won’t necessarily be followed by the decline of machines.
You are talking about the intent. Of course, it is in noone’s interest to design such machines (in the same exact way it is in noone’s interest to design buggy software.) But what one intends to do and the consequences of one’s intentions are two different things.
Machines depend on the instruction given to them by their builders (the humans), and in the case of machines with so-called artificial intelligence, this instruction is programming.
At first, of course, these instructors were only humans, but later the machines were instructed to give instructions to other machines and, again later, also to organisms.
I think that scenario has been going on for decades now …I have tech that instructs me all the time …without them I’d be truly lost and have to go back to pen and paper.
I just asked my Siri for the weather… it’s 15C out, with clear skies. He sounds like Sonny from I-robot… maybe they modelled his voice on the character, you never know.
Have you seen the fridges that shop for you?
How kind… thanks.
Rational love is love based upon intellect, reason or spirituality rather than natural love which is based upon instinct, intuition or romance. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_love
The philosopher Laurence Thomas holds that love cannot be meaningfully said to be rational or irrational. “There are no rational considerations whereby anyone can lay claim to another’s love or insist that an individual’s love for another is irrational,” says Thomas.10 Nov 2015 philosophersmag.com/essays/ … -about-you
Those emotions and thoughts ^^^ would be a whole lot of programming, to try to stuff into A machine. Just imagine the amount of instruction code that it would require.
I currently have no female friends… not had any for a year or two now… because they became irrational and it was messing with my instincts and intuition… threw me right-off, it did… feel so much f’ing better.
Oh believe me she is -
The problem is that she knows it - and even worse she knows that I know it - and she knows that is what allows her to get away with so much.
I am sure she will be that way all her life. At the age of 97 she will probably still be grinning, flirting, and plotting with her friends another day’s intimacies and giggles - wrinkles or no - masks or no - reputation or no - children or no - rationality or no - a living lotus button.