The real truth of it is, many roles cannot be performed by machines.
Not yet, but in the future machines will be able to do it.
There is absolutely nothing that a human can do that a machine cannot be designed to do better.
I can’t wait to see the cyborgs and androids pleading, “Oh poor abused me.” Then following it with a righteous indignation attack, wiping out all of mankind.
I am very sorry, James, but i would really rather die a peaceful death in my bed, then to be wiped out by machines. If You can’t wait to see that happen, You will be among ALL of mankind to be wiped out. There is no guarantee that it will be a very kind death with the human touch.
Twilight Zone, the original, had an episode concerning the displacement of humans by machines. Although Youtube has almost the entire TV series, they don’t display that episode, but has the radio version if you have the time to listen to radio (can be more fun than you might think).
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_xpnjsw-9k[/youtube]
I remember enjoying that series as a little kid.
Most humans already are “machines” and brain dead zombies. Do you actually believe the average person of average intelligence “thinks” about existence or lives a “worthy” life???
The difference between “human”, machine, and zombie, is that people falsely believe a human is “higher, above, superior” than the others. But how is presumption justified?
People take humanity for granted. People convince themselves that they’re much smarter than they are; because humanity is represented by something higher than humanity.
Humanity is a “right, entitlement, privilege” conferred by something above humanity, that turns homo sapien from merely animal into “something higher, pristine, godly, and divine”.
Machines have already replaced human beings. Because human beings were machines (slaves) from the beginning.
You’d be amazed as to how much of those original series applies to today’s society. But of course they remade the series in the 90’s, leaving out sensitive issues. There were other robot vs man issues in that series. Rod Serling was every bit as good as Orson Wells.
This is his sales pitch to his prospective advertisers;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6de1C2LWN1M[/youtube]
Oh I know, 
they had reruns even waaay back then… I probably saw each one a few times at least. They were very spot on in some cases. I tried the remakes, hated them. I don’t have the thirty minutes to watch the vid but, knowing that character, it would be worth the time if I had it.
Incidentally Serling was one of the first cardiac bypass patients, and he died on the operating table during surgery. I guess technology has not quite caught up to the facing challenges. The earliest ventures always come with risk.
I spose.
no suppose. People are not totally uninformed. They know of the existence of the pyramid of power. The very tip of the pyramid leaves space for only 1 man, and if the machinery is left to its own devices, he will be the only one left: He will be crazy from the
beginning in the sense that he will delusional ly beleive his aim to be God, to begin with. But long before that, he will be institutionalized. This sort of
scenario is not very realistic, and it is against all rules
of set theory and probability. If 20 percent survive, it will be easy to control the other 80, while at the same time controlling the progression of machine
power/ unless they loose control, which is highly
unlikely, given the simultanious progress of human intelligence.
It depends upon the extent of a machines design if it will replace human being or not. Perhaps, it is possible.
Why would other then a self destructive mad scientist
design a program of total destruction? The argument that the machine takeover will be deceptively progressive, should be forseen earlier by human
intelligence.
Not only mad scientists… mistakes can be made.
Einstein and other scientists gave us the Atom bomb, were they destructive mad scientist? He never intended it be used for war, in fact he regretted even discovering it all shortly after.
In a sense a distinction can be made with the atom bomb, where there was no appearent viable choice, The 3rd Reich needed it as the promised super weapon to clinch victory, and allied intelligence cracked the code by which this was discovered. it became a panick to do it first. Einstein, Heisenberg and others worked on it’s theoretical basis to be sure.
In the present scenario, the summa of technology is artificial intelligence, where the control needs to retain control, and there is no way I can see, where they will abdicate this, to any one or thing. So the ultimate question is whether artificial intelligence would ever successfully be able to override the controls imposed upon it. I really doubt it, because there is as of yet no innovative quality assigned to computer systems of bio feedback replication, giving it a totally open ended field.
Quantified systems can exceed human ‘intelligence’ as exemplified by the chess supercomputer Deep Blue’s vis toy over the world chess champion years ago, but a requalification can be set up in an alternate system, where that too can be defeated.That is the weakness of machine thinking, it cannot differentiate between system error in other systems, in order to re qualify opponents on basis of ranking.
A non existent anti program would be set against it with totally irregular sequential moves, it would be defeated.
This is hypothetical since I am not aware that anything like this has yet been attempted.-actually deep junior and fritz in 2003 tied kasparov and no recent rematches occured since. This proves, if anything, that intelligence at the moment is at a draw between human and machine minds.
orb,
I don’t think we’ve gotten that far yet orb. lol
What about human consciousness? Where is THAT in relation jto machine so-called [minds] and I use the term here loosely?lol
Arc, the implication was not, that at this time, computers can equal the capacity of human minds , or even outpreform them, but- it is in the works. The opinion of those here, and within the general population is, that in certain functions there is a very big potential, a possibility, that in the foreseeable future this will be the case.
Usually, in case of reasonable prediction in technological progress, the probabilities will affirm the possibilities, and arrive at crtainty at a critical point.
The impotant thing here, is not that this will ever happen, but whwther the control issues coud be disposed of in favor of human intelligence. Some talk of hybrids,between the machine and the human, a cyborg-like scenario, where a smoothly functioning interchange, or switch, if you may, may somehow de-differentiate any and all conflict.
I would think, this may be the coming thing, but here again, the very basic ontological notions of as of yet infinite regress between mind and matter will re-occur, ths time possibly, with alarming consequences.
Again , and i missed this, the same applies with human consciousness versus brain transactions. In the cyborg, the problem will become acute, since computers may at some point develop self consciousness, where theybecome aware od thei differential reduction into pure material, a state IT may no want to sutain. They may want to develop the kind of intelligence , by way of their own evolution, which would enable them to utilize human eings to graft human form thus consciousness unto their extraordinarily advanced intelligence. At this point, the ETHICAL considerations may come into play to avert catasgrophy.