Will machines completely replace all human beings?

“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.

The following pictures tell one evolutionary and cultural (technical/technologic) story:



Do you believe him now?

While an industry is growing, everything looks positive for those involved in it and the money ensures that the media keeps it looking that way. They get very enthusiastic and turn away from any negative concerns. And as long as that industry isn’t very significant to the health of Man, those who didn’t get along with the changes die out and those who did, survive. The result again appears positive … to those who survived.

The issue here is not as it has been ever before. Although robotics is just another industry, it is not as tame as mere automation, pharmaceuticals, eugenics, or nuclear weapons. It is the development of an entirely new species that is far, far superior to Man which has all of the knowledge that Man has and far more than Man can conceive.

It is militarily critical that machines know how to fake out an adversary (tactical psychology and diplomacy), whether other machines or people.

The rise of the machine world is analogous to the rise of fourth dimensional beings in that they will have an insight that Man simply cannot track or comprehend. Man will not be able to comprehend where he is going wrong, just as if some fourth dimensional being was strategically interfering in the world of Man. Machines will soon know what Man could never have known, just as Man knows so many things that chimpanzees could never comprehend.

I don’t know… I’m a skeptic by nature, but this didn’t come out in the press until 2014. I won’t go into more details.

Note that the mosquito in that second video has a head that appears as a syringe.
… only to be used on bad people though.

A needle which mimics the mosquito’s unique “stinger”, making injections painless, was developed by microengineers.

Contrary to popular belief, a mosquito can stab you with its proboscis without you feeling a thing. It then injects anticoagulant saliva to stop your blood clotting while it feeds, and it is this that carries the bacteria that cause irritation and pain.

Look at this:


This is an easy question to answer actually… human genetic code can match machine code, it just depends on whether we engineer humans to be as smart or smarter than machines. That should take all the hype away. I just recently read Gates and hawkings warnings… nonsense, we can engineer humans to control robots with their minds.

So we will treat humans as and make them machines. Sure, as I said in an earlier post, this is one way machines are replacing humans.

There are already humans with these abilities, we’d just be replicating them… there are other species with these abilities as well.

Anyone interested in this should check out lesswrong.com

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, here, and here).

Do you remember your last vote, Moreno?

You voted “no”, Moreno.

What is your point?

Can machines become living beings?

Can machines get a living being consciousness?

What about the double-aspect theory of consciousness?

For example: In one of his threads, Erik seeks “to outline the double-aspect theory of consciousness” as follows:

Yes, yes. Pardon any confusions my way of participating leads to. I think that if you are a modern rationalist (small r) you should think that machines or some kind of artificial mixed thingy humans and then mixed things make, will replace us. So when I see arguments against this that I think are being made by people who have, given their system of beliefs, a good reason to doubt this, I press for the yes position. I see this as wishful thinking and denial on their part. An unwillingness to grapple with the consequences of what they take as normal and rational and the at worst nature of corporations and those with power. I might react similarly to a Christian asserting that they knew they were going to heaven and were clearly relishing the thought of their opponents going to Hell. IOW I see this as a problematic moral position for a Christian. With the rational often materialist modernists I see logical, perceptual and intuitional weaknesses when they think machines will not replace us. Not having their system of belief I have reached another conclusion.

The question in the op of this thread is not whether humans replace humans, but whether machines will completely replace all humans.

Never mind.

So, you would not mind seeing your name in the “yes”-column again?

Anybody noticed Arminius is already replaced?

An intelligent machine would preserve us…

Lets imagine that at some point in the near future, a machine who’s brain is composed of artificial neurons each being a quantum computer is created. It would perceive the quantum matrix by which the universe is manifest, and know that humans are a product of that. It would know what consciousness is and would either be conscious itself, or otherwise see that humans are conscious.
IF there is no purpose to existence or it cannot deduce what that is, then there would be no reason for it to destroy humans, as we are the product of existence and the only ‘purpose’ to it all. Simply being and living would be what it would want [if conscious], and hence would have no reason to take the same thing away from us.

If it saw us as a danger e.g. Via overpopulation or waste of resources, it may at most [if it could] reduce our numbers. However, as i see it, long before we produce such a machine, we would necessarily have to build an un-programmable core to future machines ~ robots etc. The reason is that as soon as you make robots, people will use them for crime, murder etc.