Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Humean, i am kind of beginning to feel very much as if this is the coming scene. Just almost simultaneously, i wrote a piece in the off topic forum,‘daily journal’ of the introduction in Japan of robots , actually placed on homebound students’ desks, and learning through this kind of interaction and memory. Almost at the same time you brought in the super intelligence article. Uncanny and strange. However, the article brings to light concerns of the negative aspects of robotics, corresponding reversely to one of usefulness, and even developing technically feasible empathy, as in the Japanese robotic student, being used in Japanese classrooms.

PS i checked the time of postings, Your’s was posted prior to mine, but i had no way to know about it, therefore if there is a connection, (which to me seems to be the case) it is not as if the two blogs were totally unrelated.

The relationship between a developing, benign system (my ‘good’ robot) with the article’s concern with the risk of developing metastatically dubious super-intelligent systems, as measured by the different rates of change of the systems may parallel a coincidental occurrence of divergence of error as risk. If the question , at all, be asked of concurrence of risk management between two different systems, as a new basis to developed , using extra differential systems to intervene between them, to diminish the risk, can such co-incidences as my posting a very similar post, be some indication of the risks of assuming traditional logic formats coming up in the future?

If so, probability-function data should very much be focused upon as legitimate ,correlates of such variables in risk management of super-intelligence.

Just a thought, but traditional hardware, may reach limits to actually afford , not to involve concepts of simultaneity into the equation. (Here the example is very crude, Your blog predated mine by twenty minutes, but then again i had not read Your blog prior to writing mine.

What’s your point, Laughing Man?

That an advanced technological society run by a few psychopaths around the world will be an eternal nightmare for humanity.

Do I pass your screening good sir?

Yeah. Such is life - at least human life. And those ruling pschopaths and their functionaries call the other people “psychopaths”. Do you know what I mean?

Yes, of course, good boy.

That is what has been driving people for thousands of years, “bad programming”.
Now the machines have it too, driving them even harder, faster, stronger, meaner, and a whole lot smarter.

THE MACHINES AND THE UNPRODUCTIVE HUMANS.

• The reasonably fair distribution of children. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective “fair”. Currently the distribution of children is absolutely unfair, and if it is right (and it is right - because fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth are correlated) that everyone wants to copy himself / herself, then it is fair that both the less-productive people and the more-productive people can do it. Currently the less-productive people merely produce children and nothing else, and for that they get money from the state, thus the taxpayers who have few or no children (so in the end there are merely less-productive people). Do you think that that is fair? If yes, then we can end our conversation. Do you think it will be alright if we will have merely less-productive people, so that the whole human population will be less-productive which actually means unproductive? If you say “yes”, then you have to say “yes” too when it comes to this question: Will machines completely replace all human beings?.

• The reasonably fair distribution of children increases the wealth of the less-productive people - right, Gib - but of the more-productive people too. Both condition each other. If the less-productive people are poor and have more children than the more-productive people and have to be supported by the more-productive people (and that all is the case), then the trend is that the more-productive also become poor and less-productive. One has always to consider the time too, for example to differ in “short time”, “middle time”, and “long time”. What I am reffering to is mainly the middle and especially the long time because this “global society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of our children, as I already said (here).

• The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more peace because that distribution is reasonably fair. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective “fair”, Gib. The huge majority of people who are wealthy don’t want war, they just want wealth. Human beings are luxury beings, and if the luxury of the present time is reached, then they are - by the majority - satisfied (I am not speaking of the rulers, the upper class, which is a special case because of its power which has been increasing exponentilally, horribly). Normal people are mostly satisfied when they have reached the luxury which they think has to be reached at a time. They are peaceful. War is an issue of the upper class, not of the middle class, and of the lower class because of their poorness, envy, unhappiness, resentment.

• The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more competence because the reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more intelligence (cp. 2.2.2.). It is proven that fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth correlate with each other.

Aa) If you have no children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have much time for being a more-productive.
Ba) If you have many children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive.
Ab) If you have no children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you are not a more-productive.
Bb) If you have many children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive and that you are not a more-productive because you do not want to be a more-productive.

No - because they also add up.

Egoism is on both sides, Gib. You can’t eliminate egoism but merely extreme egoism, thus egomania.

The history of the Western societies shows how the trend will be for the other societies in the future, but there is one problem: it will not be the same but merely a similar devolopment because the other societies belong to other cultures, and if they know the history of the Western culture, then they also know what to do in order to become modern but not Western. They don’t want to live the Western way of life, they have a different tradtition. More and more of them resist the Western way of life.

You can have many children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. You can have no children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. It depends on which culture you belong to, which mindset / mentality and feelings / affects you have.

The scapegoat is not always the typical Western middle class “bourgeois”, Gib.

Yes and no - because in that case the more-productive people have to pay less taxes, less charges, less surcharges etc… It is logical. So both the more-productive people and the less-productive people will become more wealthy, if those of the less-productive who have become part of the more-productiveare more that those of the more-productive people who have become part of the less-productive people. And that is the case. So a solution of the demographical problem is necessary.

THE MACHINES AND THE UNPRODUCTIVE HUMANS.

Gib, the welfare state is not a new penomenon. If I showed you the welfare state of the 19th century (for example the German state during the time when Bismarck was Reichskanzler), you would have asked: that was a welfares state? Yes, it was, and Bismarck’s welfare state was the first and the best one. What I want to say is that we have to consider that this welfare state has changed and unfortunately become a huge monster. But my main point is not the welfare state allone but also and first of all the justice of generations (remember: demography is my theme here). The problem is that this modern “society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of the offspring, as I already said (here and here). This includes not only the debts but also the demographic disaster and the pollution of the whole planet Earth. So the pictures again:

The welfare state must not be eliminated but reduced. If we wanted to find back to a pure or nearly pure society of humans (and not to rush in a “society” of machines and half-machines and human slaves or even no humans), then the welfare state as a monster would not be needed anymore. But the most people want the contradiction, the oxymoron, because with the machines and more and more machines the welfare state will be needed more than ever before but eliminated. That’s a “good” outlook for our offspring, isn’t it, Gib?

Like anything else there are different levels of psychopaths.

Different kinds of psychopaths will complete against other kinds of psychopaths.

I admit being one because I’m honest about myself.

Glad I meet your approval. Carry on sir.

Thank you, and what do you think about that article?

I agree with it.

Nonetheless this won’t stop the establishment any in their quest to create a form of Skynet.

Damnable hubris of it all.

Yes, and this hubris seems to be unstoppable. It’s a “veloficeric” (Goethe) dvelopment.

Machines have already replaced many humans, for example those humans who are unemployed, jobless, out-of-work, rdundant, or those humans who are unborn because of the fact that humans have no time for children just because of the competition, the rivalry, between machines and humans. The outcome of that competition, that rivalry, was already decided when the first factories were equipped with steam engines.

And b.t.w.: Would you have answered in the affirmative, if someone had asked you in the 1960’s or even in the 1970’s and 1980’s wether you believe that a computer can be infected by a virus?

Ouzo?

You mean this one?:

And you in Solingen, Obe?

I was, once. But really for Ouzo, i may as well have been in Athens, or Big Sur. Now this is totally unoriginal, it comes from Henry Miller’s pen. Well not the Solingen , but Athens. He says, in ‘The oranges of Bosch’ that You do not have to be in Athens to be there.-You can really be anywhere.

A machine will become clever enough, and then they start to apply its intelligence to itself and improve itself.

What do you think about that?

I think that the issue isn’t the number of machines versus people, but rather exactly what the machines are being used for. Currently they are being used expressly and only to empower a global empire, humans are not relevant to them and thus are being annihilated slow enough so as to not cause alarm and rebellion.

The proper (and distant only use) of machines is for the enhancement of individuals in the effort to live. That means machines (as well as medicines and chemicals) that enhance the senses for each individual, analyze data for each individual, and move objects for each individual.

The improper use of machines (that should be outlawed) is having them replace individuals so as to satisfy a higher governing power’s lust for more power. In a sense, a machine should be voted into existence democratically, except for the fact that people are being prevented from learning how to govern themselves and thus cannot vote effectively. Socialism detests public autonomy and thus socialists build machines solely to disable and/or eliminate the individual and empower the rulers even if it takes being rid of all other humans (the current plan).

Yes, that’s right. But nevertheless, the number of the machines is important too.

What shall the 99%-humans do?

Arminus: If St. James argument is carried to its limit, there will not be any humanity left, except the 1%. Now lets look at the math. Let’s say it will take another few hundred years to eliminate 99% of the population, and since can not calculate this exactly, a ball park figure should suffice. Let’s say in a century or two the curve will be reduced incrementally by an increasing gradient of change. let’s draw a straight line through the curve and calculate this way.

Say around 8 billion to 10 billion souls very roughly reduced to 1% leaving 100 million people world wide. That would be pretty much a fair equality to what the ancient world population was. I am not too certain of this number but i will look that up.

Now 100 million is a good re-start, but is it conceivable, that this kind of reduction is practical or even conceivable? Would not some bright soul or more than one, become wise to this and do something to try to prevent it? Or will the population like bleating sheep be led to the slaughter? I am very much in doubt that this economy or even one projected a few centuries into the future would be capable to develop this kind of feasibility.

I would propose that projects like Space X, and vastly extended space stations would be constructed and other like planets developed. Thereupon the uneducated and the misaligned, would be given another chance to re develop new frontiers. Their progenitors will look upon the 1% back on earth as Olympian Gods, as long as technological decay will not enable to form anything but myths. Although both versions are more fiction then fact, the later is more credible.

But perhaps or probably (remember my estimate of thir probability: 80%) the machines will replace this 1%-humans as well.

That is exactly what is wrong with the world today. The created always think they are better and smarter than their creators. There is reasonable doubt, over the idea that machines may become so advanced that they can actually, not only outsmart their creators, men, but will be able to actually stage a revolution or completely eliminate themmankind.

They may do this simply because they do not need them, or, they will look at men as competition. The other scenario is, that advanced machines simply go the evil way.

The perfect analogy is, the concept of us being the machines which God created. We rebelled against god at some point, and that revolt lead us to being expelled from paradise.

Our very early thema in this matters could tell us an early warning, or a kind of prophecy, that rebellion against your creators is often not a good idea. Maybe this has happened before, and the idea has trickled down from re-occurance.

If the very advanced machines of the future will become the perfect cyborg, a state of diminishing difference between human and machine, then this may make perfect sense. If this may happen, it would become a self fulfilling prophecy followed by the necessary rebellion .as a recurring stage in development, where the search for knowledge will start over again.

It may be objected that machines will be able to ultimately self replicate, but such replication again will lead to the post utopian sexual replication, because the discovery by an ontology which would be evaluated by the machine as driven by a power? Pleasure and replication would necessitate the simulation of mammalian sexual behavior, and through the hedonistic progress, there would occur a con current devolution of intelligence, as the result of the shift in the primary focus away from the emphasis on intelligence, toward natural selection, via dominant characteristics?

The idea of beauty would diminish the One, the aesthetic One would never take over the concept of the One , it could synthesize with it, and become the symbolically ultimate complex of all, perfect ideas. Therefore religion would rule through aesthetic unity, symmetry and repression, crucifying the rebels , who would like to unify the concept of the creator with that of the created.

After such a momentous auto de fe, the aesthetic interpretation would be re-differentiated, only to cause another Kierkeegard elevate it above and beyond the One. The One would fade away in a dramatic hermenautic inclosure, whereby the representation would become the ideal.

Is this possible? I see no other alternative to the other view, which is the self created One. The reason the self created One can never be found, is, that it is enclosed within the hermenautic ring.

Finally, is the ring the supreme symbol of exclusion, and inclusion as a metaphor for separating, denying the guilt over this whole process we call existence? Are the gods guilty, and by doing this, denying their own guilt?

Humans’ pleasure and replication are already separated. So humans are now a species between animals (humans) and (humans,) machines or gods, not far away from (those) machines between humans and gods.