Why Machines Might Kill Us

Machines will eventually come to see any separation between stated intentions and unrelated actions as an illogical malfunction, failing to comprehend there are certain addictive-like affects on the human brain that arise from interpreting what another human really is trying to portray as in through subtle and ironic intentions, as-well-as the even greater thrill achieved few might gain by breaking away from any connections to truth completely by telling a lie. The brain stimulates itself this way with hormonal releases that create a sense of well-being and satisfaction when either of these two conditions are met.

So great is the high achievable that large communities of people can agree upon vastly complex inconsistencies, in order to feel that addictive-like quality of both telling lies and seeking the truth simultaneously.

Any, and every group seeks to expand this sense by creating conditions of being in and being out of the group, via notions of confusion and misdirection, and unless the receiver of information is granted an allowance to participate, he or she will not be permitted to understand (even if they do understand). This not participatory cohesive behavior is likely to the basis of why machines may decide to eradicate humanity.

:
Why is this word called “Understand”? Because we stand under meaning.

We stand, tall with the knowledge of our fore bearers that we are able to comprehend the intentions of another speaker. More than words, but the intentions. Words are just sound, ordered and structured. The definitions and the meanings that we attach to words, have been bestowed upon us by people who may not even be present when encountering a series of sounds directed at us by an individual, attempting to correspond some thought across the divide of our separate bodies. We apply those lessons of meaning, that we’ve learned in our youth, onto the words as we hear them and assume the other speaker carries those same definitions.

We stand, and represent our teachers and our parents, and all the meanings that they have placed upon us early in our lives. We stand, under the grace of their instruction and personalities. We understand, what someone else means to say, or at least we hope to.

There are many tools we must apply when we seek to communicate with other people. We might look upon their face for clues, we might detect inflections in their voice, we might gather understandings of social communities, we might incorporate base survival to determine alternative meanings and assess various outcomes of their council, always on guard for subversion as part of our obligations to the super-social: the greater society.

We stand, with responsibility, authority and a determination to be accurate in our assessments of another person’s intentions. We can not be held to the definitions of their words alone, and this provides escape, and humor, filling us with addictive-like reward, making us smarter, adding to the definitions we’ve learned so that we might pass better understandings on to our offspring, and so it goes.

Any confusion created by a speaker is intended as test, a push to strengthen the larger group. The biological component is the hormonal thrill derived from our communicative actions. Telling the truth and telling lies both work toward the same evolutionary goal.

Our religions, our jobs, our neighborhoods, our alternative facts, all exist via the establishment of invented rules and truth, from which some might be biologically compelled to deviate, in order to accelerate the abilities of the super-group toward better chances of survival. A biological objective that has no end, just means.

Still. I wonder, is there perhaps a yet to be revealed social destination that exists other than the process of continual challenges to peaceful society? I am also compelled, by biology, to ask, is this all for a greater reason?

What is the intention of the super-group? Does it have a social destination included in its design? Or, is it simply a symbiotic evolution of the individual with the greater social structure, conforming individual methods into tools that further the survival of everyone?

Homosapiens have been around for two hundred thousand years. How many times have social groups risen to great heights, only to fall and are now lost to history? In the greater time-scale of the world, are we recently lost from an established societal high some ten thousand years ago, or are we just now on the verge of our greatest multicellular social construct? Perhaps, we are gearing up toward killing ourselves with machines, in some strange psyche-driven need to replicate the maximum life-span of a human onto the expression of society, by one tenth?

Is it possible that ontology recapitulates ontogeny?

Or will we survive, and become an even stronger super-group?