Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Lets not call them robots in the first place which are nothing but mobile computers programmed by humans and therefore dangerous. In this discussion I was thinking more in terms of artificial intelligence machines created to eventually program themselves only more successfully then we have done to ourselves throughout history.

As for Pandora’s box, that been opened since Adam and Eve (figuratively) and never closed since then. Would AI make the world worse than it already is? I don’t think so. The best thing one can say about humans is that they themselves are nothing more than malfunctioning machines.

Yeah right! I don’t notice anything here that wasn’t done constantly for the last ten thousand years. Actually one can add a few more “human defects” to this summary that even a robot wouldn’t think of.

Why do we fear intelligence machines so much in the first place? Could it because initially we would be “infecting” them with our own codes and if that’s the case what then amounts to a greater evil, us or them?

70% OF HUMANS WILL BE REPLACED BY ROBOTS WITHIN 3 GENERATIONS?

Puzzling assertion. Since 95% of humans are regarded by the economic system as expendable why buy an expensive android that you have to periodically replace, fuel, program, and maintain. Why not just use humans are throw them when they are too old.
Humans are self sustaining and outlast all known machines.

You have to ask who are all these androids serving? If you don’t have any humans, why have robots?

People have been making this sort of claim since the Luddites destroyed the weaving machines, yet it has not happened.

Old people are socialists, so, they will develop a social system together with the machines which will replace their unborn children. That is the only replacement which will happen. And then when they die there will be neither machines nor people. end of story

How insane.
As people grow old, they also grow conservative, and tend to leave socialist ideas behind wanting to preserve and justify their looting of the future economy with what they call “pensions”.
Old people are seldom, socialist.

Are you a misanthrope or even a misanthropist? I reverse your sentence and say (merely in order to show both sides): The best thing one can say about machines is that they themselves are nothing more than malfunctioning humans.

You missing the point. You seemed to be arguing that neutral and lack of hate are pluses. I don’t think so. Sure, humans have acted horrifically. Should we add a new agent THAT HAS NO EMPATHY AT ALL to a world with the problems you want us to focus on?

YOu have no idea what a robot would not think of. Perhaps an AI driven robot would be curious about torturing killing and resurrecting someone or everyone for millions of years to see what happens to their minds.

Why do we fear intelligence machines so much in the first place?Well, I answered that, at least in part.

Could it because initially we would be “infecting” them with our own codes and if that’s the case what then amounts to a greater evil, us or them?So you want to focus on blame. I was focusing on consequences. Sure, the fact that humans would create them, and not just humans, but humans at the behest of a tiny segement of the human population, one that has shown repeated disdain for human and other life, that’s a factor. So yes, in part it is the combination of our flaws and hubris that make me very skeptical about what we would create. Then all the possible errors, then what I focused on about having a lot of entities with great power and no empathy.

Generally with humans you have to teach them NOT to feel empathy, generally using some idealogy that classifies other groups as non-human or evil or sub-human, and this justifies the coming violence. With robots there is no need to override the non-existent empathy and caution.

I don’t see why you take fear and concern about robots and AIs as some kind of approval of all human behavior. This is a false dilemma. One can be skeptical about the latter and have tremendous concern about the former.

If both conditions are equal then they cancel each other out…so, what’s the problem with AI we don’t have with humans since there’s seemingly no remainder to this division?

This makes a good point! But I think there is a very potent difference between the two. To eviscerate empathy from an individual through ideology or whatever means is to purposely create an evil in its wake. What other reason can there be when humans are deliberately deprived of their humanity by other “humans”?

An AI machine on the other hand, which was never endowed with the requisite emotions in the first place is not as a consequence brainwashed into committing atrocities. In fact I would think of an AI entity more as a kind of “Data” in StarTrek attempting to educate themselves to any new experience even those as mysterious as emotion.

Saw this article relevent to the thread. Some good info tucked into various places.

wtfrly.com/2014/05/23/the-robots … 4E4j3J_t1Y

Thank you for that link, and here come the Economic Collapse:

"The Robots Are Coming, And They Are Replacing …

47 percent of all U.S. jobs could be automated within the next 20 years.

47 percent?

That is crazy.

What will the middle class do as their jobs are taken away?

The world that we live in is becoming a radically different place than the one that we grew up in.

The robots are coming, and they are going to take millions of our Jobs." - The Economic Collapse

I think there will be weird and bad social effects, when service type jobs get taken over. I mean, it already feels like one is dealing with machines, but when checkout at the supermarket, coffee at STarbucks and so on is all handled by robots. The plasitification of everything. The derealization of everything. That choking feeling you get in a mall, where everything is a copy of a copy of a copy, but everywhere. Or that sad, empty fakeness, void feeling on suburban streets, but everywhere. I’ve seen the future and it is murder, to quote Leonard Cohen. Though this murder is the murder by lack of feeling and realness.

A more better apt question is, who exactly will be running those machines?

What is their end game?

That’s why you kill off 95% of the global population. Problem solved. See how easy that was? :laughing:

Killing off 95% of the global population is the wet dream of international elitists.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=185830

Nope. Transhumanism where man becomes one with machines is only reserved for the elitists concerning immortality of transferring conscious mind into computer.

Either that or genetic cloning. It all ends the same way.

95% of the rest of humanity are not privileged enough. You have to be a part of the chosen inner circle. The chosen ones.

Go back to your hookers and blow Smears. This conversation might not be your strong suit.

You might want to sit this one out.

Uh- oh…

We have a technological utopian on our hands here. They’re always envisioning the future to be like some sort of Star Trek paradise when in all reality it will be something akin to the Borg or Terminators. The technological cornucopians as I like to call them.

On the bright side global peak oil and energy will completely destroy modern industrial technological society where I view that as a great thing.

Think of it as the wheels spinning off of the machine that is technological industrial society.

Hopefully that really starts to kick in before this technological nightmarish new world order thing prevails. Time will tell.

My only regret is that I won’t live long enough to see it happen. I give it two hundred and seventy five years.

That of course assumes we don’t destroy ourselves and the world first… Party on. ( Like it’s 1999) :mrgreen:

Not if you can kill a majority of human beings before they become a problem to manage, control, and so on.

It’s a global genocidal race. Race you to the bottom!

Which begs the greatest philosophical question of all, is humanity doomed to destroy itself? :-k

Old hat! When haven’t jobs been lost to new technologies? It’s not that which causes economic collapse. It’s the absolute stupidity of governments - what they qualify as expediency - and the massive rampant greed of corporations who are “too big to fail” though fail they should, who get bailed out every time at the expense of main street, the producers. That’s what completely distorts economics not new technologies which usually have the opposite effect, though admittedly, there is an adjustment period. One of the most technological countries on the planet, Germany where robotics are rampant, don’t seem to be suffering under a huge unemployment problem.

Poor Monad. He doesn’t see that the real aim is to make entire populations obsolete where their very existence is considered an anachronism.

It’s a brave new world of progress and the greater population needs its entire lifestyle or existence replaced by mechanical automated systems.

Only the administrator class would prevail.

Progress! Worship the state! Blah, blah, blah, and blah…