You seem to be asking if I believe in the Roman gods or the Greek gods.
The answer is, “Not entirely”.
As far as what category I fit into, I am “James S Saint, de NotA”.
“None.of.the.Above” 
Gilles Barbier “L’Hospice” (“The Hospice”), 2002.
In English:
Although in the USA, it is a place where one goes to die.
… a place where one goes to pay for dying more slowly.
Or more speedily, depending on the intent of family members. The bigger the inheritance, the more impatient and determined the beneficieries.
That’s why medical bills are so high, so that the money will go to the insurance companies (government) and doctors rather than family members. Once the money is used up, the “cost of living” is out of reach, thus death. If family members want the money, they have to take the doctors and insurance companies out of the picture by either not going to the hospital and/or encouraging an earlier death. So either way, you pay in order to live longer. If you don’t pay either family or government/doctor, you are sure to die sooner. It is called “extortion”.
Having money and not paying to live, is making yourself a target. Since the government favors early death (machines are much preferred), people are given incentives, authorities, and encouragement through the concern of money to choose early death.
It is pointless to control all life if one can’t choose who is going to live and who is going to die. From the government stand point, the more death, the better, as long as it is the right people dying (those we have kept money from).
Yeah. Sometimes one has also to be careful when translating from French into English.
Above and beyond that, is the actual fact, that hospices do, routinely practice euthanasia, based exclusively on the desire of heirs and relatives. The dying person is seldom told.
Interestingly but not surprisingly, the oldest generations and the youngest generation are seldom told anyway.
This fact reminds me of the following one of my posts in this thread:
In future all generations are seldom told. The end effect will be the redundance of all humans. They will not be needed anymore.
In this schema, the caretakers, whether be they human or machine, will granted, increasingly will take over. However, it will be am autocracy, and as autocracies go, the conversion of even the human caretakers by machines will ,(if carried that far) will result in the survival of the 1 human caretaker, who will be unable to be unseated, because of the accumulation of his immense power. This power will not allow, machines to upstage him, because, the unique human potential for innovation? Therefore, humans will never be replaced, even if the last remaining human caretaker has;to,destroy all machines in order to gain the upper hand. Then he will grab the most desirable female human and mate her and start the whole scheme. He will be, of course, You may guess who.
I don’t think that humans are as intelligent as you think. You are a shameless chess player, aren’t you, Obe? Machines are better chess players than humans because machines are more intelligent than humans.
That is pretty much the plan, “Destroy all that is not me! Then I will be God.”
Yes, but in the end the Godwannabes will probably lose against the machines.
Not so! MACHINES CAN NEVER BECOME INNOVATIVE! Men will win out, because Faust’s trick!
A trick is like a sleight of hand, but isn’t all human intercourse like a sleight of hand? The most convincing way to go, is the one most subscribe to? How can subscriptions work if not by fiat of those, who align themselves to a cause most beneficial to them and those they can convince ?
We are all tricksters borne of apes, mimicking one another for most benefit for us, singularly, while proclaiming the others’ benefit? Politics is a trick to get others to do your bidding. Can a machine ever become so altruistic , as to align themselves to the needs of other machines? I rather doubt that.
Machines have been designing new machines since the 1980’s
Try again.
And machines can adopt any strategy that a human can, including altruism (if it sees a reason to). And “emotions” are merely subtle strategies.
And even if so, who is to say, that a man maybe a superman will not come along to up the ante?
It has been predicted!
I hope so too.
A machine does not have to become altruistic in order to know what “altruistic” means, to conclude, and, according to the conclusion, to decide and act in an “optimal” way. This „optimal“ way is no problem for the machines, but for the humans.
The hope “dies” last. So, yes, we hope and will hope, Obe.
Oh okay, so let’s fling ourselves off a cliff because there is a chance that superman will fly by and save us. It’ll be fun!!
To become altruistic is not to act in accordance to the needs of others, so as to optimize the situation, but it is, to act, in order, to benefit the largest number of other machines/people. People can differentiate between these two types of behavior, but in order to do that, machines would need to differentiate between qualifying and quantifying the varieties of experience. So far, machine have been restricted to the latter, and i do not see any conceivable technological advance to overcome this hurdle.
Supermen have occurred in periods of extreme and perilous change in the past. There is no reason to conclude they will not re-occur again.