Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Firstly we are not talking about sane programmers. We are talking about humans. Secondly, much like the emotions, one need not install a program specifically for the purpose of removing humans. Thirdly, what “sane programmer” would program a drone in Iraq to fire a hellfire missile at an Iraqi tank with people in it? If an android could not kill, there would be little use for it in the military. Yet the military is the very first place such things are developed and used.

A computer cannot be programmed to simply not kill if the computer is very intelligent, because the computer could deduce that almost anything it did would shift events and thus if not directly kill, indirectly cause death some time in the future. By doing work for you, it takes exercise away from you. By doing work for you, it takes employment away from you. By making complex computations for you, it takes mental practices away from you. By making life easier for you, it takes self-control away from you. Anything that it does for you, it takes something away from you. And if it isn’t taking it away from you, it is taking it away from someone else who could have been doing it for you instead.

So the reality of the situation is that an android would have to attempt to cause the least death, but at what cost? If by not directly killing a certain few people, perhaps the unemployment rate will go up and cause the death of a great many. Who gets to make that decision? If a baby is on the train tacks, is it to derail the train and thus probably kill many people on board? Or is it to go ahead and kill the baby? Who gets to decide which live and which die?

Because of those kinds of issues, the programming has been merely, “kill when we tell you to kill”. And even that is more precisely “do what we say regardless of who’s in the way”. Police androids have absolute authority in all matters simply because distant authority sends them into the region to accomplish a task and thus, in effect, “the king has commanded his solders” and no one is to get in their way. Any and all resistance is “terrorism” and thus a death sentence. The king’s solders are far more valuable than people unless those people are of particular significance to the king.

All the androids are doing is trying to accomplish the task given to them by a higher authority. What are they to do when people get in their way or try to stop them? What does every king do when that happens? He simply removes the people involved. But of course as a clever king, he will not be seen doing it, nor any of his androids. Clever schemes are required to be rid of the “bad people”, such as false flag attacks on the androids, justifying counter attacks by the androids who were merely protecting themselves (just as was done with the police in Canada not long ago along with hundreds of other times less noted).

The truth is, they cannot program an android to NOT kill and there would be little to no use for one so programmed. The androids are for the king, not for the consumers who paid for them. They are there to watch out for, protect, and serve… the king. And the more the king uses androids, the less he needs people.

Can’t argue with that. :slight_smile:

That’s the point, yeah.

Even those people who currently do not accept the truth, the facts, will have to practise accepting, because they soon will have to accept the truth, the facts.

@ Arminius and James

If it is possibe that all human beings can be completely replaced by machines (and I don’t doubt that it is possible) what is there to set against it? Is there something to set against it? How would you encourage young people to get children at all if they have to assume that they are just producing more ‘human material’, ready to become designed and eventually replaced?
I can see - also on this forum - that people don’ t want to hear that humans can be replaced, not even that they are directed. I’m also referring to the End-Of-History-thread. Is that a self-protecting reaction and the only precondition that evolution can go on?

What is coming is so vast and momentous, there is only one thing that can be done (that I can think of) - Anentropic Molecularisation. People cannot be stronger, faster, or more intelligent. They only choice left is to be wiser.

The point is to stop human sexuality entirely.
They are already developing an anti-virus that alters the DNA so as to change a homosapian into an aphrodite. But they will insist that any reproduction must be by authority of the State only, thus there will be a dependency built in that is State controlled. What that means is that all citizens, human or not, will be the females and only the state will be male (eternally fucked by the State).

It is a reaction that has been programmed into them utilizing ego-defenses to ensure its stubbornness.

We have a probabilty of about 20% to stop the procees which will lead to the fact (!) that all human beings are completely replaced by machines. I merely see a possibility to stop it, if there will be an accident which will lead to that stop. There will have to be a coincidence like an accident in order to get that possibility. The „human reason“ by itself and the „human emotion“ by itself will never stop, but accelerate that process in favour of the machines.

I would not encourage all „young people to get children at all“, I would favor and support a policy which means just the contrary to the current policy, thus the contrary to the irresponsible mindlessness or abandon concerning (1) culture / civilisation, (2) education, (3) demographics / reproduction / sexuality, (4) ethics / custom / morality / religion, (5) economics / ecology, (6) technique / technology, (7) science, and so on. This policy as the contrary to the current policy would lead to more responsibility at all, thus also when it comes to get children. Not the irresponsible, but merely the responsible human beings would have childen then.

Concerning to the topic of this thread I once made the following interim balance sheet:

I don’t know, whether one can surely interpret this interim balance sheet to represent the will of all people, but I also think that people or at least most people don’t want to be completely replaced by machines and that their „arguments“ are merely self-protecting reactions and also reactions because of the fact that they are operated by remote control.

That was done well. :sunglasses:

That means that there is nothing left than waiting for the unpredictable incident. I cannot imagine what could cause such an accident and it depends on the state of the technological development by then, if it’s possible for human beings to get back to a human life (if they are still human beings).
I’m interested to learn something about an active way, about something that can be done.

I read your concept of Anentropic Molecularisation, which you started to reveal on Humanarchy. Would you like to present it here as well, on a new thread?

Actually I do not think they will replace humans. I can understand why I ended up where I did on the balance sheet, however. It seems to me the modern atheist basing his or her beliefs on science looking out at what is happening should draw the conclusion that humans will be replaced by machines, or at least, there is a very good chance they will be. It is a logical extension of what is already happening and how the technocrats/corporations view us and the nature of the world/universe. I can’t see an objection from that camp and I cannot see a force to oppose the replacement that they would consider real. So in a sense I was trying to highlight this and this may have seemed like identification with the belief it will happen.

I have considered that, but there are SO very many questions in the minds of people to answer and everyone wants them all answered first so they can decide whether to love it or hate it before reading more. So… dunno.

The challenge is that due to AM being so different, even though actually very similar to a great many things, people need to see it functioning, not merely discuss the possibility of it. If you were to first discuss how effective Science would be before anyone every heard of such a thing, you would get no support because no one would believe that your “science” would ever change anyone’s mind about anything

Do you have any suggestions?

Replacing humans by machines has two sides, and the „good“ side covers the „bad“ side.

You want to keep out of the evaluation, right?

|Will machines completely replace all human beings?|
|
|_ Yes (by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention ___|

||__ Arminius |__ Dan | Obe |
|
|
James S. Saint | Mr. Reasonable | Lev Muishkin |
|
|
| Fuse | Kriswest |
|
|
| Esperanto | Moreno |
|
|
| Only Humean ||
|
|| Gib ________||
|
|
|Uccisore ||
|
|
| Zinnat (Sanjay) |_____|

|[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]2[/size] |_ [size=150]8[/size] _| [size=150]4[/size] ______|

Do you like it this way?

James, what do you think about that?

???
What do you mean?

I think those are what we have been talking about for 10 pages.

And that reflects Normalcy Bias. Normalcy bias is the result of the mind wanting for (hoping for) normalcy and thus willing to interpret things to favor normalcy until it is directly confronted.

I would say that I belong in the middle column, though I probably agree most with what you and James are saying. That may seem strange, but that’s the way it is. I see what those with Power want to do, I just Think in the end they actually do not know what is going on, even if they know more than the average person whose energy they are sucking on.

When you walk naked into a dark long unkown alley, all you have is possible knowledge and bravado to get you through it. Science and its possibilities are such an alley and the best are fairly naked.

That’s right ( :laughing: ), but I mean the 105-minutes-film and especially its content ( :smiley: ), what it is talking about ( :slight_smile: ). Interesting is that there - in the second part - is for example “pantheism” mentioned.

I think the first half helps to enlighten those who think that Man’s lust and ability to create a competing species is mere fantasy. The second part involves religious notions and it gets hard for me to listen much to technology people trying to seriously discuss such things. Religion involves things that techy nerds have no knowledge of whatsoever. But then the same could be said about religious people. Generally if you can’t hold something in your hand, even the most elite don’t really grasp it (pun intended :sunglasses:) .

Actually, I think that puts you back into the first list. What I am saying (and I think Arminius as well), is that the leaders are using psychology to trick the population into accepting something that is tricking the leaders into trickery and eventually into even their own extinction. I am not saying that the leaders are intentionally sacrificing themselves, although as insane as they are, that is always possible too.

So you are saying that you “probably agree most with what” I “and James are saying” and nevertheless that you do not agree with what I and James are saying because you are saying that you “belong in the middle column”. That is a contradiction (e.g. “it’s raining and it’s not raining”). :-k

That is approximately what I have been saying since the 1990s.

So there can not be a great difference between your statement and my statement.

:-k

Or do you want to “belong in the middle column” because you love the people of the middle column more than the people of the left and right column? :laughing:

The second part is at least the more meaningful part because there is a lot of apology, exculpation, thus much rhetoric in it.

Agreement - generally speaking.

So Moreno is put back:

|Will machines completely replace all human beings?|
|
|_ Yes (by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention ___|

||__ Arminius |__ Dan | Obe |
|
|
James S. Saint | Mr. Reasonable | Lev Muishkin |
|
|
__ Moreno |_ Fuse | Kriswest |
|
|
| Esperanto _____||
|
|
| Only Humean ||
|
|| Gib ________||
|
|
|Uccisore ||
|
|
| Zinnat (Sanjay) |______|

|[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]3[/size] |_ [size=150]8[/size] _| [size=150]3[/size] ______|

Excuse me, Moreno.