Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Arminius]

Here comes the 2nd interim balance sheet:

|_______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 ____|
|___|____ Amorphos _____|_____ Esperanto _____|____ Mithus _____|
|___|__________________|____ Only Humean ___|___ Nano-Bug ____|
|___|__________________|_______ Gib ________|___ Lizbethrose ___|
|___|__________________|______Uccisore ______|____ Cassie _____|
|___|__________________|__ Zinnat (Sanjay) ___|__ Tyler Durdon __|
|___|__________________|___________________|__ Eric The Pipe __|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sum:|_______ 4 ________|_________ 8 ________|_______ 9 ______|

There is a difference between this 2nd and the 1st balance sheet (=> #).

[James S Saint]

Furthermore, no matter how close, there could still be prejudice, and for good reason. When it comes down to human preference why wouldn't we prefer our own kind, with whom we can relate to on the most fundamental level, especially if we foresee a future in which machines could dominate and eliminate us?

The argument is that the conversion will not be a black to white decision, but a slow, mostly unseen conversion that snowballs out of control and thus ends up even replacing those who could have made a different decision.

And the OP is actually an inference stated as an implication. The conclusion isn't "the implication", but rather the entire proposal is an implication. An exact syllogistic implication has no question to it. An inference basically means, "it seems like things point in this conclusion". An exact implication means, "because of these known truths, this conclusion is necessarily true".

The obvious intention was to discuss the inference of the premises; "Do cheaper things really always replace cheaper things in the long run?", "Are machines really cheaper than people?", "Might it all occur by accident?", "Is it an insidious plot by an alien android race?", "Are people just so damn dumb that they will die out and leave it all to machines?"...

[Arminius]

The argument is that the conversion will not be a black to white decision, but a slow, mostly unseen conversion that snowballs out of control and thus ends up even replacing those who could have made a different decision.

Yes. With the utmost probability that has been being or will be the development. I think so, and I do not really appreciate this development.

And the OP is actually an inference stated as an implication. The conclusion isn't "the implication", but rather the entire proposal is an implication. An exact syllogistic implication has no question to it. An inference basically means, "it seems like things point in this conclusion". An exact implication means, "because of these known truths, this conclusion is necessarily true".

The obvious intention was to discuss the inference of the premises; "Do cheaper things really always replace cheaper things in the long run?", "Are machines really cheaper than people?", "Might it all occur by accident?", "Is it an insidious plot by an alien android race?", "Are people just so damn dumb that they will die out and leave it all to machines?"...

Especially the last of your given examples is the question I am very much interested in. I would add this question, if people are not damn dumb enough: „Are people just damn decadent that they will die out and leave it all to machines?“ The question whether people are intelligent and the question how intelligent people are depend on both objective facts and subjective facts. The more the objectively estimated or measured intelligence sinks the more the subjectively estimated intelligence rises. If the level of intelligence sinks, then the people in decadent societies do not necessarily change their estimation. So the consequence is that they overestimate their intelligence, and their subjective overestimation is not anymore corrected by obejective estimation or measure because the level has sunken. This vicious circle is very fatal.

Will those people or even all human beings never awake from an „age of sleep“ (James S. Saint), which has been coming or will come?

[Orbie]

The argument is that the conversion will not be a black to white decision, but a slow, mostly unseen conversion that snowballs out of control and thus ends up even replacing those who could have made a different decision.

Yes. With the utmost probability that has been being or will be the development. I think so, and I do not really appreciate this development.

And the OP is actually an inference stated as an implication. The conclusion isn't "the implication", but rather the entire proposal is an implication. An exact syllogistic implication has no question to it. An inference basically means, "it seems like things point in this conclusion". An exact implication means, "because of these known truths, this conclusion is necessarily true".

The obvious intention was to discuss the inference of the premises; "Do cheaper things really always replace cheaper things in the long run?", "Are machines really cheaper than people?", "Might it all occur by accident?", "Is it an insidious plot by an alien android race?", "Are people just so damn dumb that they will die out and leave it all to machines?"...

Especially the last of your given examples is the question I am very much interested in. I would add this question, if people are not damn dumb enough: „Are people just damn decadent that they will die out and leave it all to machines?“ The question whether people are intelligent and the question how intelligent people are depend on both objective facts and subjective facts. The more the objectively estimated or measured intelligence sinks the more the subjectively estimated intelligence rises. If the level of intelligence sinks, then the people in decadent societies do not necessarily change their estimation. So the consequence is that they overestimate their intelligence, and their subjective overestimation is not anymore corrected by obejective estimation or measure because the level has sunken. This vicious circle is very fatal.

Will those people or even all human beings never awake from an „age of sleep“ (James S. Saint), which has been coming or will come?

There may be another scenario? The age of sleep, or just sleep for that matter, instead of causing a vicious cycle, may become a conscious disconnect, with no further effects of meltdown. If there is consciousness to it, the estimation, would, as admittedly remaining constant, have some effect on disproportionate or overestimated intelligence. Another thing is, the abnormal intelligence, itself, may be the effect of sinking general intelligence. It may be a natural process of a compensatory effect to sinking awareness.

If at a critical level of the negative feedback a break would occur, then sleep would not be of pleasant dreams, for nightmares would surely come forth. If still, absent these, psychotic episodes will be in alert mode, to signify that social intelligence has diminished.

The apex of this realization is what makes or breaks social consciousness, making a difference between enhanced or diminished capacity.

[Arminius]

The argument is that the conversion will not be a black to white decision, but a slow, mostly unseen conversion that snowballs out of control and thus ends up even replacing those who could have made a different decision.

Yes. With the utmost probability that has been being or will be the development. I think so, and I do not really appreciate this development.

And the OP is actually an inference stated as an implication. The conclusion isn't "the implication", but rather the entire proposal is an implication. An exact syllogistic implication has no question to it. An inference basically means, "it seems like things point in this conclusion". An exact implication means, "because of these known truths, this conclusion is necessarily true".

The obvious intention was to discuss the inference of the premises; "Do cheaper things really always replace cheaper things in the long run?", "Are machines really cheaper than people?", "Might it all occur by accident?", "Is it an insidious plot by an alien android race?", "Are people just so damn dumb that they will die out and leave it all to machines?"...

Especially the last of your given examples is the question I am very much interested in. I would add this question, if people are not damn dumb enough: „Are people just damn decadent that they will die out and leave it all to machines?“ The question whether people are intelligent and the question how intelligent people are depend on both objective facts and subjective facts. The more the objectively estimated or measured intelligence sinks the more the subjectively estimated intelligence rises. If the level of intelligence sinks, then the people in decadent societies do not necessarily change their estimation. So the consequence is that they overestimate their intelligence, and their subjective overestimation is not anymore corrected by obejective estimation or measure because the level has sunken. This vicious circle is very fatal.

Will those people or even all human beings never awake from an „age of sleep“ (James S. Saint), which has been coming or will come?

There may be another scenario? The age of sleep, or just sleep for that matter, instead of causing a vicious cycle, may become a conscious disconnect, with no further effects of meltdown. If there is consciousness to it, the estimation, would, as admittedly remaining constant, have some effect on disproportionate or overestimated intelligence. Another thing is, the abnormal intelligence, itself, may be the effect of sinking general intelligence. It may be a natural process of a compensatory effect to sinking awareness.

If at a critical level of the negative feedback a break would occur, then sleep would not be of pleasant dreams, for nightmares would surely come forth. If still, absent these, psychotic episodes will be in alert mode, to signify that social intelligence has diminished.

The apex of this realization is what makes or breaks social consciousness, making a difference between enhanced or diminished capacity.

Do you see there even a chance for the humans in the „age of sleep“?

[Orbie]

While the age of sleep may be unconscious, that period doesn't figure into awareness, however, there is no temporal gap, until awakening.Sleep is only a state of regeneration, until awakening. Brunhilda was granted her wish of not to be awakened unless for some worthy being. There is no need for men during regeneration, until the worthy one arrives. And then, it's likely, he never leaves. He doesn't sleep. Machines are interim products, during sleep, after awakening, there is no need for them. They may turn out to be the keepers.

[Arminius]

While the age of sleep may be unconscious, that period doesn't figure into awareness, however, there is no temporal gap, until awakening.Sleep is only a state of regeneration, until awakening. Brunhilda was granted her wish of not to be awakened unless for some worthy being. There is no need for men during regeneration, until the worthy one arrives. And then, it's likely, he never leaves. He doesn't sleep. Machines are interim products, during sleep, after awakening, there is no need for them. They may turn out to be the keepers.

But will there be a chance for human beings to change or even to turn the development in the opposite direction?

[Orbie]

That is why, wisely, You put me in the column marked indeterminable. There is always a chance, granted, however one of the biggest obstacles to it's realization is the diminishing returns which mankind places on value, whether it be other, or self = valuing. We are at a low point in valuing the very being in which we find our very existence. Until that can be overcome, singularly, it seems we are heading for a period of long sleep.

[Arminius]

That is why, wisely, You put me in the column marked indeterminable. There is always a chance, granted, however one of the biggest obstacles to it's realization is the diminishing returns which mankind places on value, whether it be other, or self = valuing. We are at a low point in valuing the very being in which we find our very existence. Until that can be overcome, singularly, it seems we are heading for a period of long sleep.

My estimation: the probability that machines take over is about 80%, and the probability that they don't take over is about 20%. 80% vs. 20%. 20% is not too less. There is a chance.

[Arminius]

If a human will become post-human, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling, then that human will still be a human, although merely partly. And if that human will be the Übermensch, then probably a more or less laughable one we better call "Letzter Mensch" ("Last Man"). This "Last Man" will probably be exactly that human who will no more be able to notice his entire replacement by machines.

=> #

[Orbie]

In fact, our bodies are the most efficient and perfect machines up to date. If our cybernetics evolve anywhere near to our bodies , the cyborgs will be hardly noticeably different. So how do we know at the present time, that our bodies, as we experience them now, are not partly artificial, from a past machine age? We really can't know this. We might as well be recreations.

[Moreno]

If a human will become post-human, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling, then that human will still be a human, although merely partly. And if that human will be the Übermensch, then probably a more or less laughable one we better call "Letzter Mensch" ("Last Man"). This "Last Man" will probably be exactly that human who will no more be able to notice his entire replacement by machines.

=> #

It seems to me, sometimes, like people would rather not be here. They are Always focused elsewhere, preferably via digital media. I often would rather they were not here either, especially if they really don't quite like it here, and so they have to distract themselves from here by looking at pseudo-heres that are off somewhere else. If only this was not merely a kind of fuzzing over of their BEING but in fact a quasi ontological shift away from here - here being this universe/reality. Perhaps they can actually shift out completely.

[Arminius]

Cultural, technical, economical, artistic developments always belong together. If people like to be not here, if they are always focussed elsewhere, preferable via digital media, then it seems that a development - for example a technical one - has led them to this behaviour, but this impression is merely partly true because the other developments (cultural, economical, artistic) are connected to this (technical) development. So I think there is no way out for them because their own develeopments depend on those very much connected developments. If you take one development (e.g. a technical) away, then the other developments (e.g. cultural, economical, artistic) bring it back - immediately.

[Orbie]

They also can not have a choice in being elsewhere, because of the question of being responsible for themselves now has been offset by insitutionalized requirements. They are beyond the idea that elsewhere is a greener pasture, digitalization has brought the elsewhere here. There truly is no elsewhere, exit.

[Arminius]

At least it is very difficult to break out of this mainstream, to be a dropout in a really successful way. Apropos: What about the Amish, the Mennonites ...?

[cassie]

Machines will make human beings obsolete.

[Moreno]

Machines will make human beings obsolete.

So humans have some use value to something external to humans and this use value will be superceded, for whomever this is, by the Machines?

[cassie]

Evolution does not always move upwards.

Projected ideals, because they are unknown, and have not been applied, can result in unforeseeable consequences.

Man in his desire to "correct" himself, healing himself from his past/nature, makes himself obsolete.
Machines, technologies/techniques, are already being used to enhance and to replace certain human processes.
If they ever begin to exceed the inherited to a degree where the "human" part is buried in technologies/techniques, we can no longer speak of human.

Human is a sexual type.

[Orbie]

Evolution does not always move upwards.

Projected ideals, because they are unknown, and have not been applied, can result in unforeseeable consequences.

Man in his desire to "correct" himself, healing himself from his past/nature, makes himself obsolete.
Machines, technologies/techniques, are already being used to enhance and to replace certain human processes.
If they ever begin to exceed the inherited to a degree where the "human" part is buried in technologies/techniques, we can no longer speak of human.

Human is a sexual type.

Most obsolescence is planned for sales purposes. It is true in sales, men have to sell themselves, but if we are willing to agree with the (20-80%) split, then it is conceivable, that the law of diminishing returns will reach a low point, where machines will take over promotion into virtually a preponderance, where sales will suffer. Other isolated venues, such as subcultural groups, as far as i can see, do not offer easy hospitality among them. It is inconceivable that this trend of dehumanization will exceed certain critical thresholds. If they do, they will inadvertently cause counter production, as a result of feedback processes. Major centers of production, including virtual reality production, is currently overcompensated this way, into emerging markets, but at the rate of change in the increase of this production, my guess is, that a plateau will be reached on a steep slope acceleration. Exit into sub cultures is neither feasible, nor affordable. The marketability and use of exponentially produced high tech items, the primary focus of major industrial technological societies, is a good example of diminishing markets for non linear development of such products, which a linearly supportive traditional world economy may not be able to sustain. If you had a supercomputer in your pocket capable of petaflop calculations, what use could it be? There will be a leveling off of both development and marketability of such items even into the traditional sales territories of corporate, and defense-industrial segments of the economy. This type of leveling may cause depression in those sectors, with unpredictable consequnces.

[Orbie]

Evolution does not always move upwards.

Projected ideals, because they are unknown, and have not been applied, can result in unforeseeable consequences.

Man in his desire to "correct" himself, healing himself from his past/nature, makes himself obsolete.
Machines, technologies/techniques, are already being used to enhance and to replace certain human processes.
If they ever begin to exceed the inherited to a degree where the "human" part is buried in technologies/techniques, we can no longer speak of human.

Human is a sexual type.

Most obsolescence is planned for sales purposes. It is true in sales, men have to sell themselves, but if we are willing to agree with the (20-80%) split, then it is conceivable, that the law of diminishing returns will reach a low point, where machines will take over promotion into virtually a preponderance, where sales will suffer. Other isolated venues, such as subcultural groups, as far as i can see, do not offer easy hospitality among them. It is inconceivable that this trend of dehumanization will exceed certain critical thresholds. If they do, they will inadvertently cause counter production, as a result of feedback processes. Major centers of production, including virtual reality production, is currently overcompensated this way, into emerging markets, but at the rate of change in the increase of this production, my guess is, that a plateau will be reached on a steep slope acceleration of marketability.Exit into sub cultures is neither feasible, nor affordable. The marketability and use of exponentially produced high tech items, the primary focus of major industrial technological societies, is a good example of probable diminishing markets for such products, which a linearly supportive traditional world economy may not be able to sustain. If you had a supercomputer in your pocket capable of petaflop calculations, what use could it be? There will be a leveling off of both development and marketability of such items even into the traditional sales territories of corporate, and defense-industrial segments of the economy. This type of leveling may cause depression in those sectors, with unpredictable consequences.

[Orbie]

double post

[Moreno]

Evolution does not always move upwards.

Agreed, though that wasn't so much my focus. My focus was more on what seemed an objective obsolesence. Humans cannot become obsolete to me, for example. Hence me asking about 'to whom we would become obsolete for.'

I know there are humans who already Think most of us are obsolete and have for, well, millenia. But that's in their sense of use value.

Projected ideals, because they are unknown, and have not been applied, can result in unforeseeable consequences.

Man in his desire to "correct" himself, healing himself from his past/nature, makes himself obsolete.

Yes, people's sense of what their value is can lead them to being made obsolete by Machines. Those people.

Machines, technologies/techniques, are already being used to enhance and to replace certain human processes.
If they ever begin to exceed the inherited to a degree where the "human" part is buried in technologies/techniques, we can no longer speak of human.

That's true, but to me that isn't obsolesence.

Once even an implicit potential for humans to become obsolete is accepted as real, then all someone who really rather hate Life has to do is come up with performance criteria and then point at a machine that can perform better on each criterion.

So that was me not granting that this obsolescence is real. I am not simply an engineering event. Not remotely. Someone may Think of me that way and may label me obsolete, but that is subjective. Unless it is God, I suppose, and then we have one hell of a discussion, me and God, ahead of us.

[Orbie]

Evolution does not always move upwards.

Agreed, though that wasn't so much my focus. My focus was more on what seemed an objective obsolesence. Humans cannot become obsolete to me, for example. Hence me asking about 'to whom we would become obsolete for.'




I know there are humans who already Think most of us are obsolete and have for, well, millenia. But that's in their sense of use value.

Projected ideals, because they are unknown, and have not been applied, can result in unforeseeable consequences.

Man in his desire to "correct" himself, healing himself from his past/nature, makes himself obsolete.

Yes, people's sense of what their value is can lead them to being made obsolete by Machines. Those people.

Machines, technologies/techniques, are already being used to enhance and to replace certain human processes.
If they ever begin to exceed the inherited to a degree where the "human" part is buried in technologies/techniques, we can no longer speak of human.

That's true, but to me that isn't obsolesence.

Once even an implicit potential for humans to become obsolete is accepted as real, then all someone who really rather hate Life has to do is come up with performance criteria and then point at a machine that can perform better on each criterion.

So that was me not granting that this obsolescence is real. I am not simply an engineering event. Not remotely. Someone may Think of me that way and may label me obsolete, but that is subjective. Unless it is God, I suppose, and then we have one hell of a discussion, me and God, ahead of us.

Moreno, the big issue surrounding self valuing/obsolescence, is the fact that large segments of the population suffer depression due to their lowered esteem issues. The sales of anti depressive medication is big business, and it's causing poor work performance in traditional economies. That includes the displaced worker, whose job was lost due to technological innovation. If a multi dimensional description can be attributed to the obsolescence concept, then such connections can be made. Literally, though, the graph has not taken off in a quantum leap to justify it, but it is more then probable that it's coming, and fairly soon.

[cassie]

Obsolescence comes gradually, in the form of atrophy.
When an organ loses its functional value it begins to atrophy.
This process alters the organism as it alters its organic structure.

The organism will not disappear, it will replace its functions by techniques/technologies, to the point where it can no longer be called human, no more than a human can call itself an Australopithecus, or a Neanderthal or a fish.

The identity of 'human' is a sexual one.

Once this interdependent function is replaced by techniques/technologies the designation loses meaning.
If the word human is redefined to refer to an idea, or to refer to a continuum, then it can refer to any part of the continuum just as much as the most current.
The idealization of the word "human" makes it arbitrary, as it can be replaced by any other, or it can mean a different projected goal.

If the term is used to refer to an organism with logos then the mechanical advancement towards artificial logos will replace the organic.

When the original sexual designation is lost, or replaced and overcome with techniques/technologies, the genetic becomes mimetic.
The word no longer symbolizes a species.
The paths this technology can take are multiplied, because there is no longer the restrictive factor of interdependence.
The technologies/techniques increase their possibilities, and independence.

The splintering will take on a mimetic component, guided by different ideals.
Each branch may choose to retain the designation "human" or it may not, but the term will have lost its original reference.
This process has already begun, with the gradual, but consistent, atrophying of the male/female subcategories.

[Arminius]

Machines will make human beings obsolete.

There is indeed a high probability that machines will completely replace all human beings - I estimate: 80%.

Evolution does not always move upwards.

That's right.

Projected ideals, because they are unknown, and have not been applied, can result in unforeseeable consequences.

Man in his desire to "correct" himself, healing himself from his past/nature, makes himself obsolete.
Machines, technologies/techniques, are already being used to enhance and to replace certain human processes.
If they ever begin to exceed the inherited to a degree where the "human" part is buried in technologies/techniques, we can no longer speak of human.

That's right too.