Orb, humans are no intelligent enough. And most of the scientists do what they do not because of superiority but because of interest, curiosity, trial, and error (!). In other words: most of the scientists are not intelligent enough to control what they do. Moreover: most of the scientists are not controlled by themselves, as it should be; they are controlled by the rulers, as it should not be; and the rulers are also not intelligent enough to control what they do. Thus: humans are not intelligent enough.
I think a machine is fundamentally a utensil. Even the body is a utensil of the mind, and a mind of the body, if seen separately. It is true that humans turn into machines, utensils. But they do this by using more and more utensils or prefabricated tasks, they consider their own.
James once posted a video about seemingly self valuing robots made from a couple of pieces of well selected scraps. I wonder how that works. I would personally not mind it very much if robotic beings became part of our empathic circle, beyond being utensils. In the end they can probably also become consumers themselves.
But first they have aeons of anarchic liberty ahead of them.
I estimate that the probability that machines will completely replace all humans is about 80% (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Don’t forget: the descent of machines is not based on biology but on culture.
From AI (artificial Intelligence) to AH (Artificial Human), already being designed to tactfully use psychology to fool people, even better than professionals can.
Bomb Squad; “I prefer to always use the robot because it is safer.”
Military; “We will always have robots and men fighting side by side.”
“The remarkable aspect of this graph is that it shows four periods of sustained use of the terms Luddite and Luddites after the initial movement subsided. The late 1960s peak can be understood as part of the rising green, ecological movements, and the 1830s due to Captain Swing, but I can’t see easy explanations for the other periods. Perhaps the 1880s relates to the ‘new unionism’, and the 1930s the great depression and a corresponding lack of faith in progress. The 1930s also see the first concerted use of the term ‘Luddism’, as a theorization of their practice. There’s also a jump in the late 1940s; a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki perhaps? One of the problems of this data is it’s not clear who is using the word, or how; is it a smear thrown at one’s enemies, or a claiming of one’s own tradition? (The results pre-1810 are due to Google’s dodgy metadata.)” - Anterotesis.
“At the site where the robot is deployed, even though some jobs are replaced by robots, many jobs are preserved from moving to lower cost labor factories offshore. There is much evidence proving that with more robots, fewer jobs are lost. That’s why Germany, with it’s hourly rates almost 50% greater than in the US, has remained competitive: they have twice as many robots per employee as do the Americans. There are also ancillary jobs created at educational institutions that teach robotics, at robot component suppliers, and at engineering and consulting companies that provide integration services and equipment.” - Singurality Hub.
A guy back in 2007 told me that robotic mosquitos were going to be made to depopulate the planet. I didn’t believe him. He said it was the Japanese who were going to do it.