Will machines completely replace all human beings?

I actually doubt that the eohippus is less fit for today’s Environment. Less large predators, easier to hide. I see no reason why it would NOW be less fit.

yes, I Think it is inevitable.

It’s a good Point. Have to mull that a bit. It seems like there are a couple of trends happening at once. The pathologization and medicalizing of emotions AND the relaxation on taboos to some degree.

I actually doubt that the eohippus is less fit for today’s Environment. Less large predators, easier to hide. I see no reason why it would NOW be less fit.
[/quote]
Large herbivores are threatened everywhere. Humans want farmland, there’s less to eat. Hunters want trophies, Chinese medicine wants ivory and hide. Maybe they could flourish in Siberia, or in a nature reserve. Horses do well because they’re large enough and small enough and tameable enough to ride, and for the meat. Eohippus might be a good beast of burden.

My feeling is that the imperative to be happy is behind both pressures - happy as an emotion, a sensation, rather than a way of being in the world.

IMHO, I don’t think humans will ever be completely replaced by machines. I don’t foresee our technology ever getting to a point where none of it ever has to be managed by human beings under some circumstance or other.

Besides that, human beings just won’t stand for it. If machines completely replace us (in the workforce, that is), human beings will be out of work. We’ll revolt and destroy the machines before we allow ourselves to starve.

So the frog will eventually jump out of the pot and overthrow the humans?

I just don’t think it must necessarily end either way. Your frog analogy isn’t very good, but both are possibilities. Machines could take over in some possible world, but I can also imagine a world where we aren’t completely naive and don’t build machines that end up actively destroying human kind. Machines that outlast people aren’t necessarily replacing human beings either.

They have been for years because the frog doesn’t jump out of the pot.

Think about the economy. Certainly no intelligent governance would let it get as horrifically bad as it is, certainly not Greece. But the frog simply doesn’t jump out of the pot, so why not?

It is called “Normalcy Bias”.

Certainly any sufficiently selfish intelligent governance would allow the situation in Greece if there were a controllable benefit. Are you saying that machines are sabotaging our economies and cooking people alive?

And who would that be?
And wouldn’t that also apply to machines replacing people… for the same selfish reasons?

I don’t really know, but I also don’t know it is a coup by machines to eliminate humans and take over. Either is possible, I suppose, but I can’t accept the machine narrative without some serious evidence, and at the same time there is plenty of evidence of people controlling other people through power relations.

Sure, but I just don’t believe there have to be such machines or that we don’t stand a chance to control our devices.

“We” already don’t control them.

Do you control what your eyes see?
Don’t you respond in accord to what your eyes see?

If Google designed your eyes (which in a real sense they do along with Microsoft), you see what you are given to see by a machine that I can guarantee you Microsoft has lost all control over. And you respond accordingly, as do they, because they use similar machines to tell them of reality and what is really important and needed by society and the bank.

It is a machine that told Bill Gates that “We must immediately begin eliminating a great deal of the population”. The machine logic reduced to simply, “We do things this way which costs that much which requires X amount of resources and people require too much of those resources.” The machine wasn’t asked if there is a better way of doing things because each step is already machine designed, so the presumption (without thought) is that “machines have already made it perfect enough and thus we simply must get rid of the people”.

Basically, on the higher level, the machines have been asked merely to design a beehive or ant colony, but of ultimate power.

And it isn’t a coup, it is designed to be voluntary so that the blame is shifted entirely upon You, the population.

If this is an allusions to humans not responding to the gradual machine take-over, then it is a poor one. Think of it in terms of individuals rather than the labor force as a mass bulk: A man who has worked for a factory for several years and all of a sudden loses his job because a more efficient, powerful, faster machine has taken his place is not going through a gradual transition. His lay-off is sudden, and he will be upset. There will be a point when enough people experience this unwelcome transition at a high enough rate that they, in response to the prospect of starvation, will do something about it.

Utter non-sense.

The man doesn’t see the slow changing that led to the machine taking his job as he was buying internet time, computers, investing in tech companies, paying taxes to be used to build more technocracy, and watching TV. By the time it is too late, the water has gotten too hot, he doesn’t “jump out of the pot”, he, in effect, dies - got laid off. He died from blindness of that which was sneaking up on him slowly, exactly like the slow boiling water that he can sense, but can’t tell where it is coming from… until it is too late to do anything about it, but get kicked out - “die”.

The analogy was formed pretty perfectly… long ago when it was first stated.

James,

I just don’t understand your thought process.

Do I control what my eyes see?
Well, I believe I can shut them if I want, or direct them on a certain part of my surroundings, so to some extent yes…

Do I respond in accord to what my eyes see?
I respond to what my eyes see according to a variety of factors…perhaps instinct takes over if I see something dangerous, probably other sensations, previous memories, or mood fluctuations factor into my response by providing the decision-making part(s) of my brain with context. I don’t know what you’re asking.

If Google designed my eyes?
What are you talking about? Google Glass, Google search results and algorithms, Google advertising, YouTube…?

…or else what? What did the machine say would happen if we didn’t? What conditions were given as input for the machine to come to that conclusion? Again, what are you talking about?

Yes… all of that and more; "statistics that the government uses to promote various ideas and laws upon the population" (for example). And not merely gather with machines, but filtered and analyzed by machines in machine ways of thinking what has been said or done.

Or else the human race would entirely die out due to overpopulation devastating the resources. There have been quite a number of films and documentaries on it.

Statistics were given, like the above example of Google, but far more, not merely from Google machines. And far too many machines for anyone to track down any errors that might have been involved, so they just go with the “probability” that the machines know what they are talking about and we had better obey “Science”. We all know that Science can’t be wrong else your cell phone wouldn’t work. :icon-rolleyes:

James, is everything a pissing match to you?

You’re equating death with the worker’s being laid off. I was equating it with his literally dying of starvation. I’m saying the revolt will happen after the laying off. As for before it happens, I could agree with you that it’s like the frog in boiling water scenario.

I agree with your conclusion but not your argument. Enhanced humans can oversee the Machines. AS the enhancement increase, the human is not longer human. So Machines once modelled to enhance humans could finally replace the humans and oversee other less AI like Machines. Each step away from being human will be small enough so that it is taken. The accumulation of steps eliminates the human. And there is a lot of Power behind this process.

Machines can’t replace me because I don’t do anything.

Brilliant.

brilliant but untrue. You would be the first one to replace. After all, a large percentage of people do nothing or next to it, but they would still have to be replaced, because they are the most voracious of consumers. Consuming machines would need to be invented to offset the supply demand curve, if do nothings would perish, or go on some kind of revolt. Either that, or dump excess supply into the ocean, but that harbors indelicate consequences to the morale.

I have a couple of Machines that do nothing, so if you ever need a break I can post your replacement. Or I suppose we would simply consider them doing nothing for you here.