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. 
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.
Deer are doing very well in many parts of the US. In fact there are often complaints that they are doing too well.
I would say that one is driven by feelling better/more oneself and the patholigization is aimed at the removal of emotions, not necessarily all of them, like the so called positive ones, but even these should be generally muted except when watching sports or winning a reality show.
What do you mean by an “enhanced human”?
Transhumans, genetically modified humans, cyborgs, humans with chip interfaces in their brains…and so on. IOW tinkering and tweaking and enhancing the human body more and more until it is no longer human. Nanotech will get involved, uploading of minds, the use of computer memories as memories in humans. You can google many of the terms I just threw in to see some of the possibilities. Overall, whatever can be seen as improvable, will be improved, sense organs, muscles, brains, immune systems, blood… In steps we move from homo sapians to something that is entirely made. An artifact, though it may think of itself as human (or post human).
I see. I thought by “enhanced” you just meant really intelligent humans–humans who were smart enough to manage the machines–and as technology gets more and more complicated, it will take more and more intelligent humans being to manage it–to the point where they are so intelligent, they aren’t human any more. 
But the cyborg concept makes a lot more sense.
Well, what you’ve painted there is one possible scenario, one possible direction in which technology may evolve. I can see it maybe happening–sure–but if the question is what do I think will happen, I’d have to express a bit of skepticism about that scenario (it seems too fantastical to me).
The way I’m imagining this topic–the way I read the OP–is in terms of machines taking over human jobs–you know, like factory workers having less and less work to do because bigger and better machines can do the work faster and cheaper. Picturing how human cyborgs fit into that is little difficult–although I can imagine some scenarios–for example, why not surgically implant bionic tendons into one’s limbs in order to move heavy object more easily, or to shovel dirt faster, but that seems such an erratic option compared to simply buying dumb stand-alone machines.
But of course, the labor market is not the only context in which we can talk about machines taking over human beings. We could talk about athletics. Hell, certain unscrupulous athletes already cheat by taking steroids and other performance enhancing drugs–why not integrate bionic technology into their bodies to make them run faster, jump higher, throw longer, hit harder, etc. Or what about simple lay people interested in the prospect of ESP abilities–it’s possible, in principle, to communicate telepathically if only we could figure out how to integrate microchips into the human brain, thereby converting neuro-chemical signals into digital form in the microchips and from there into radio signals traveling through the air to be picked up by a recipient microchip in someone else’s brain.
So I can see that; the question is, can such technology go so far as to completely replace humanity? Or will such a turn in our evolution be its own undoing, our own arrogant conceit deluding us into believing we know where all this is going and that we can control it, but in reality we’re just fucking ourselves up to the point of going crazy and ultimately killing ourselves? Or maybe it’s somewhere in the middle. Maybe humanity will eventually consist of those who refuse to take any part in the transformation (granting the free world continues to respect the human right to make such a choice), those who do take part in it (the cyborgs, the bionic men and women), and maybe even those who completely reconstruct themselves so that there isn’t even a trace of their prior humanity left in them (perhaps, for example, someone who chooses to upload his/her whole psyche into a machine replica of his/her body and then dispose of the organic original).
Yes. Of course. I can guarantee you.
Well said, Obe.
In case anyone didn’t detect, that was a jocular “brilliant” – as in “brilliant, we will defeat the machines by doing nothing!”
Why?
To whose morale? Man’s or machine’s?
Excuse me, Gib, but this sentence attests to a naive belief. You really believe in a revolt of this kind of humans who - at least for the most part - don’t know what’s going on with them?