Some say that if all of us are working as teams within an ecosystem, if we are able to exchange skills and knowledge with other people, then we can be more resilient to any disruption within our labour market, like those produced by the emergence of new technologies. But in truth, all that is left for humans to do after the AI have taken over everything - and they will - is to try and keep the systems under control. The only jobs left for people will be for managers of these systems, of the AI systems, and for those who work with them in more creative ways. But even this economic niche is growing very slowly, mainly because the main beneficiaries of the growth in the AI markets have been companies rather than individuals.
In my opinion, this is where most of us are heading: a labour market in which we, humans, become more and more redundant. Millions will be without employment, so, there will be a massive increase in social tension. There will be conflicts because jobs which have been there for decades and relied on one type of input (human workers) will not be there any more. A few will be successful in adapting and creating new ways of using the AI technology. But, for the majority, life will be a constant uphill struggle.
No, Machines will not replace all humans. They will be an integral part of the continuing advancement of Civilization, but Humans will still be able to work and earn money in a free capitalist society.
I think children eat too much candy because they don’t act on or really know of the purpose of eating.
And I think people replace human’s because they don’t act on or really know of the purpose of living.
When you don’t know the real purpose for doing something - you might do anything - mostly negative.
The point is not what we should or should not do, we have passed that opportunity a while ago. The question has reworked to what is it about life that evolved to what it is right now, and since in most part it has become irreversible, what steps could be taken to stop further damage.
Children defer back to what they were thought, abd the deference goes back ultimately to an unhumanly planet , devoid of any experience.
If, the devolution of progress continues, we’ll be back at the starting point. Perhaps that was a machine age, looking to develop sentience. Maybe they, whoever they might have been, left their planet for similar reasons we are just beginning to mull over.
Children (and adults) eat sugar because there is a mutation in the human genome that has been selected for preparation for winter such that in the autumn, when the fruit is on the trees they will eat as much as possible.
The sucrose in the fruit and honey in the autumn is half fructose and half glucose. These trigger major metabolic changes in the body.
The production of insulin instructs the body to switch off fat burning, and reduce blood sugar to send the sugars to make fat, first in the liver then use cholesterol to transport it the to adipose tissues.
Fructose also switches of Leptin the hormone responsible for satiation. This means that the subject will never get full and will continue to gorge on sugary foods to make more fat.
Bears have this mutation. They can grow massively fat for the winter when there is a scarcity of food…
These days, of course, winter never comes and the supply of sugary food is always available. This is the key reason for the epidemic of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.
To make it worse the authorities have wrongly pointed the finger at fat and cholesterol and as a result food manufacturers have made “low fat” foods where the fat is replaced by more sugar. They have also invented High Fructose Corn Syrup which make people hungry and stimulate the reward centre of the brain to keep people craving sweet food.
Pretty much everything anyone does is either rational or irrational relative to their highest goal. The highest goal determines what’s good and what’s bad. Without it, every action is equally good as every other. You obviously think that eating can be bad otherwise you wouldn’t be complaining about it leading to obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and so on. And if you think that eating can be bad that means that you think that eating can be irrational. But you refuse to admit it presumably because you don’t want to blame people, you want to blame the environment. “They aren’t irrational, they are perfectly rational! It’s just that their perfect rationality leads to all sorts of bad consequences! Like cancer! And diabetes! And it’s all because of the evil people banning fat and promoting sugar!” And although I agree that there are people trying to make and keep other people irrational and sick (intentionally or unintentionally), that doesn’t mean their victims are being rational. “Reason” refers to the part of your brain that helps you see what your emotions and instincts can’t. It’s that which allows you to see that you’re eating far more than you should – unless it’s not working or is altogether missing. Children are known to be lacking it which is why they love candies so much.
You are not the only one who says: “in most part it has become irreversible”. But is that true? And what do you mean by it exactly? If it is true that the technicians and scientists no longer know how which algorithms behind artificial intelligence continue to work, then: … good night. But is this what you mean when you are saying: “in most part it has become irreversible”?
Has it not been certain humans who have made this planet inhuman (assuming they really have)? Have they not made this planet hostile to life (assuming that they really have)?
Should they not have done so (assuming they really have)? So we are in the realm of ethics after all, if not in the realm of religion.
Why is a small group of living beings, who call themselves “human beings”, allowed to decide on the life and death of all living beings? Because this human beings give themselves permission to do so, because they want to be powerful over everyone and everything, because they want to be (like) gods.
UN human = inhuman as far as a evolutionary ethics can not revert to an eternally willed devolutiontlThat stage predetermines a robotic or cyborgian reoccurance.
But at the stage of the last man, that man has to start to re-evolve to the earliest memory of man kind. A deconstructed stage is still at the stage. Of a partially designated reduction, whereas before the point where the absolute absurd can not become bracketed.
That point is what is guardedly sought after now, in an existentially derived reductive epoche,
In this age of increasing uncertainty, the only question is not to ponder who will win, but how to go about the time it takes, by changing the garb the emperor changes from the trifecta of closets available to him