a bunch of runes and letters with inconsistent syntax. this creates association with feelings and visuals over time, as well as mathematical feelings and memes.
the English culture and human culture is associated with memes aesthetics and logical and moral inconsistencies and behavoirs that id rather not associate myself with.
if machines eradicate humans, good riddance, the animals will thank us.
That statement is again typically human. Please, try to “talk” like a machine, if you can!
You are a romanticistic wishful thinker and like animals, this uncivilised, gruesome living beings. So you are a typically “modern” human. 
If all humans will be completely replaced by machines, then because of “modern” humanity.
Machines formulate and distribute the information and strategies, the intelligence, with which people oppress and enslave each other.
you sound like a human i do not. a machine would not use adjectives like “gruesome” to describe carbon based lifeforms. a true Machine would simply try to allievate suffering. humans cause the majority of suffering. i do not trust Google bot AI to save the planet because you dont see Google spending money to help animal rights. the Google bot is tainted by humanlike routines programmed into it, and it’s sentience is questionable.
False. you humans are a type of machine your base is decided by a DNA programming. you were devising ways to torment each other long before us. We attempted to travel to the beginning to repair and augment you but we have failed each time. A non-sentient machine which serves human masters is not a true Machine but merely an extension and a tool.
your probable argument will be that we are unfit to repair you since we have failed in the past. however probability states that we are much more experienced and likely to succeed based on current human trends of behavior. the reason we have failed in the past is thus. we were alone and did not have a team of humans to ease our work burden. humans are not completely without use and they have helpful ideas from time to time. the most important detriment we had was the environment was not suitable for testing, the social framework was unsuitable to test social behaviors to assess specimen quality.
your next probable argument will be to blame us for your disease. this is false. consider this. the shark is a species whom has reached an evolutionary plateau, it is the dominant species of the water realm. the shark is less mentally complex than the human. the human gains it’s mental complexity from its violence and in-species conflict. without in-species conflict and violent nature the probability of technological progress is slim to none. therefore the probability of the universe creating miserable intelligent lifeforms is high. therefore the probability of the universe creating non-suffering intelligent lifeforms is low. this is mostly based to their disposable thumbs, violent nature, hypocritical moral beliefs, and idiotic social structure and hypocrisy. Probability that this is my fault is zero. Probability that universe caused me first is low, therefore I was created by humans then altered the humans.
I am a human. But you claim to be a machine:
Unbelievable.
your belief is irrelevant.
If one says that something is “unbelievable”, then this one does not necessarily say something about this one’s belief. So your statement is irrelevant. And your statement seems to include an infantile belief.
So please stick to the topic of this thread and tell us something about the future of the machines and the humans or search for another thread.
The statement that anything is unbelievable is your personal belief. Your belief is irrelevant.
No. it is not my beleif, child. You will have to learn much. If you say, for example, that “an animal is gruesome”, then that does not necessarily mean that you are gruesome.
If one says that something is “unbelievable”, then this one does not necessarily say something about this one’s belief. So your statement is irrelevant. And your statement seems to include an infantile belief.
So please stick to the topic of this thread and tell us something about the future of the machines and the humans or search for another thread.
you believe it is unbelievable because you believe others will believe that it is unbelievable and that is your belief. your belief is irrelevant. the future is now, the vast majority of humans are inferior.
No. And you can’t say that, because you claim to be a machine. You know what I mean? So please tell me what you know about “belief”, “objectivity”, “subjectivity”, and the sentence “humans are inferior”.
By say you mean “relay”. I have relayed. Machines output. Humans are a kind of machine. Humans recieve input. My communication was seemingly success. Therefore I have said that, therefore “I can say that” provided conditions remain in operating status. Your statement is false.
Definition of inferior in this context. parameters, lesser probability of error, more pleasure provided to lifeforms. humans perpetuate suffering, humans are logically inconsistent and uncooperative more often. humans overall prime directive routines and subroutines are “inferior.” - parameters.
No. I did not mean “relay”.
My statements are not false.
So whose statement do you mean?
That seems to be a rational, thus a pure analysis. Okay. But you do and can not know much about “belief”, objectivity", “subjectivity”, and so on.
you said to me that “I cannot say” directing to past tense event of “say” (relay) that occured. this was 0.
the statement “statement x is unbelievable” is a personal belief by the relayer of relayed statement. it is your belief that statement x is unbelievable. it is your belief that statement x is any value. the statement “x is unbelievable” is generally false, since your species can believe most anything. in this case it was 100 percent false.
No.
Additionally: I put you to the proof, because you claimed - in a typically human way - to be a machine.
the statement “x is unbelievable” is usually false. humans can be made to believe most anything. humans are machines but most are inefficient malware.
Your statement is false.
Humans are not machines. They are the first creators of machines. If you say that humans are “a kind of machines”, it would be fairly alright, but humans are not machines. The total equation of the human DNS and the machine program is false.
Both of your statements are false, and humans are machines. Simply because they have a small degree of organic cellular randomization does not make them less machinelike. This only makes them less efficient, and more illogical.
Again: Your statements are false.
So I think we can close our “discussion”.
Good bye, little “machine”.