Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 115. (Read 288375 times)

 


And I hope you will. What TZM propose is just what we could come up with through analysis, logic and scientific understanding, but we are still very limited in knowledge. By having more people analysing it, we can hugely improve it, spot the fallacies and inefficiencies and make it more viable.

That is a valid point, the brain uses pattern recognition and many shortcuts, so that it doesn't have to brute force all the possible solutions. However, that's just a problem of software and algorithms. With the recent advancements of machine learning and evolutionary algorithms, computer are now already much better than humans in many tasks that were once thought relegated to our bains (e.g: IBM Watson, suggestions from Amazon, GMail priority inbox, Adense et cetera).

As I stated before, instead of one general purpose AI, we have many hundres of purpose-specific AIs, which can function much better and more efficiently than we do, with the aim of utilising those arrive at better decisions. See "Where are we going? Section project earth" for a general presentation on this issue.

http://vimeo.com/7857584


Just analyze what we really to do, and what is relevant to make our lives better. If we didn't have to fuel this nonsensical economic growth just for the sake of profit, we could eliminate 70% of the current jobs and have people live much healthier lives with a 8-hours/week work schedule. And before replying to this, please do some research, don't just tell me what you feel in your guts.

A common misconception regarding the word democracy is widespread, largely because of bad news reporting and a fundamental lack of understanding of the political system.

AFAIK, there are no functioning democracy in the entire world. For example, the United States is a Federal presidential constitutional republic, nowhere the word "democracy" comes into place, and for a very good reason. Italy is a Unitary parliamentary republic, and so on and so forth. If democracy were to be put in place, it would be highly impractical, even with today's technologies and e-voting. Why would you vote for everything that there is to agree on, maybe even with a quorum? Nothing would get done.

The political system as we know it was practical and had its use before the evolution of complex systems of collaborations, such as FOSS and the scientific community at large. A saner system would rely on these advances in technology, sharing of information and collaboration and integrate them in the workflow.

When you have to deal with a technical process, it doesn't matter what the majority believes, it matters what is true and can be tested, based on scientific knowledge. Complex systems organisation don't work on democratic grounds, but on the scientific method. Yet, we apply the notion of electing officials, who have no understanding whatsoever of what they are doing, to mange our lives. In the US, the overwhelming majority of congressmen and women are lawyers and bankers, who make laws for bankers and lawyers, go figure. It's a self-perpetrating system that has no business in making the lives of everyone better, and that is inherent in the design.

As I said, we can give a good education to everyone, so that if they want, they can contribute to this new saner system, much like Wikipedia, Linux, Firefox, Open Source Architecture Network, Open Source Ecology work. That would actually improve people's lives.

As for the matter of ethics, yes, that can be a democratic system, but for technical processes it doesn't make any sense, much less the various forms of republics.

Ok, I should read the material of TZM more deeply before having an opinion on it. I'm just talking about what I heard (or wachted), but I must admit I haven't read much about the movement.
You're right again, my criticism could be more productive if I do.
I still don't know what's the difference between RBE and TZM is, so I should definitely study it before making risky claims about any of them.

Yes, I'm sorry. That's the right definition. My fault.


My point is...
With the same complexity class, we have a problem in which, (unlike tick-tack-toe)  the human brain is better computing than the machine the greater n is, precisely in a field (computable problems) in which the human has been defeated numerable times, with the notorious example of chess.
I think the machines have to learn more about the brain in this particular problem than the brain has to learn from the machine. The robustness and adaptability of humans will keep us in the employment market for a long, long time (maybe forever?).

We'll never build a machine that "values" better than us, whatever that means. And politics/economics is all about what society and individuals value.

Sorry again. I've asked to this reply without reading the next one.

Those questions should be asked to voters and representatives. Voters are (or should be) the ones who control every political aspect, and of course what economic model to follow. It's called democracy.

Yeah, you can improve a lot our democracy, but only giving everyone more direct power, allowing liquid/direct democracy.

Because it does not. TZM proposes a practical, tangible, verifiable, falsifiable, testable system.


It did. It's called "Resource Based Economy".


Abstract? They are actually very practical, and falsifiable. So far, nobody has provided any evidence that what we propose cannot be achieved, is wrong, is worse that what we have. Just a lot of people not reading the material, misinterpreting and projecting into it just about anything.

Which is really a shame, because I am positive that what TZM proposes is far from optimal, and I would love to gather some actual, sound criticism, in order to improve it.


Again, I see no evidence of that. Just you attaching names to things, with no research done whatsoever.

Has Metal Gear Solid taught people anything?

As you stated, both games have n*n complexity, and what changes is n. So, there is the only difference between the two games in terms of how much time will it require to compute (complexity), which is what I stated before.

As for computability, which ia a very specific term in and has a very specific meaning, they are exactly the same in computability theory, a branch of mathematical logic closely related to computer science, and theory of computation in CS.

Whether you use Turing-computable and μ-recursive functions or lambda calculus, it doesn't matter. They all have computationally equivalent power.


Yes, it is. It determines which problems, or classes of problems, can be solved in each model of computation, but it doesn't tell you ho much will it take or how difficult it is.


.... and that's the field of complexity, not computability.

Although technology could be better utilized, there's already a connection between the two.
Why don't we just point to these idiotic decisions and explain other people why they are idiotic in a concrete manner instead of talking about some abstract future political/economic system.
Or just propose another concrete political/economic system.   


I've read your previous posts, but I've not read TZM material. I saw all the zeitgeist videos though. Although not very accurate in some claims, I find them entertaining.
Have you read my previous posts? You said you just read to page 7.


The scientific method uses hypothesis that can be falseable. But many of your claims are so abstract that you can adapt them as we try to prove them wrong.
By removing financial considerations, you also remove valuable data to measure how economical (economy != capitalism) that proposal is.   


I've not repeated communism or AI dictatorship because you clarified it to me (although I bet many TZM enthusiast don't think like you in that respect).
But yes, it seems to me that TZM is mostly based on "fantasy cornucopia".

From your links:

Chess complexity class:    EXPTIME-complete
Go complexity class:    EXPTIME-complete

I repeat: both problems are computable. That means that a machine can solve them (no matter if it takes an eternity).
But that doesn't mean that the time of computation is the same.
8x8 Go is easier to compute than conventional chess (8x8), but 19x19 Go is harder.

Tell me, you that have studied so much computer science. What is the complexity (in Big O notation) of Go and what is the complexity of chess?
I'd say (correct me if I'm wrong in this, because I'm not sure how chess is generalized) that is O^2 for both (depending on the size of the board).
Computability is not just Yes or No. As I  said, some problems are easier to compute than others.

Well, no. This proves you have not studied anything, and you do not know what you are talking about.

Computability tells you if a problem is solvable at all. Complexity tell you how much time will it require to solve it in Big O notation.

For example, here's a table of the complexities of some well-known games and here's go's complexity.


I agree, that is why we should not wait for better technology, but utilise the one that we already have at its full potential instead. When our hardware and our software will improve, so will our society, if there is a connection between the two. if not, we will just have smarter and faster computers, with dumber and dumber politicians making idiotic decisions.


Because it will not. I'm starting to think there is a fundamental problem of understanding a communication: have you even read my previous posts and TZM material, to make such assertions? It seems that you superficially flicked through what other people say about TZM, but that you have not actually researched anything.

TZM does not advocate using super powerful and improbable futuristic general purpose AI to solve all of our problems. That's what you think it does, and then you disagree with what you have just say. See Dilbert comic above. You did it again.

TZM simply proposes to utilise the scientific method, what we use to make anything work well in this society, also to the social design itself, with a systems approach.

That means, for example, that if a proposal of a new transportation system is to be put in place, rather than asking: "how much money will it cost?" or "will this benefit our financiers and stockholders", or "will this get me elected again next term", we should be asking other questions, such as "What kind of material does it use? Is it more or less efficient than the previous technology? What is the environmental impact? What are the health risks for the population? Is it really necessary, or rather will it have a detrimental effect of the local community? Will this actually improve the standard of living of the people, or does it just make the economy grow, irrespective of what people really need?" and so on.

That is the basic idea. I don't understand why you keep pushing this "communism, fantasy cornucopia, AI-dictatorship" bullshit that TZM does NOT mention nor imply at any time.

Yes. The fact that Go programs are worse than humans is completely irrelevant in any political/economical discussion. So it is that Chess programs are better than humans.

I know what complexity and computability are. And the Go is as complex than chess, just the size of the problem is bigger. So even if both problems are computable, the difference between them is in computability and not in complexity: the opposite of what you have said.

I think that waiting for better hardware is not the way to go to implement a computer go that beats the world Go champion: we need different algorithms. Current developments use monte-carlo algorithms but I'd bet for neural networks trained through genetic algorithms.
I think that waiting for better technology is not the way to go to implement a political/economical system that preserves nature and justice.

I don't understand why you call for awareness if everything is going to be great thanks to AI's cornucopia.
By the way, what TZM says about peak oil?

That is completely irrelevant, as it is a question of complexity, not computability. (If you don't know what that is, go and study http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computability/)

For go, it's just a matter of time, and not even that much.

And even if that wasn't the case, it doesn't change the overall argument.

You completely missed the point. General purpose intelligence is treated as an unachievable myth, and it's completely unnecessary for the sake of the argument. You don't need an AI that can do "everything", but several AIs that can do "anything", very specific tasks, as it already happens now in some areas.




Again, missed the point. AIs will help us arrive at better decisions, not take control and do their own.

Look, it's pretty damn simple, why do you keep projecting things that nobody has said? You make up sentences that nobody wrote, and then you disagree with them. WTF?




First, Daniel Lemire is not a zeitgeist member. He is a professor at LICEF Research Center, Pavillon Saint-Urbain, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), specialised in Data Warehousing and OLAP, Recommender Systems and Collaborative Filtering, Information Retrieval. He has nothing to do with TZM, I just quoted an article he wrote that was relevant to the discussion.

Second, just calling someone stupid and "member of a sect" just proves that you either can't argue or don't want to argue. If you really think that paragraph is invalid, elaborate.

Yes, even in a deterministic board game with very simple rules they fail against the worse pro.
This game is Go.

"...the best Go programs only manage to reach an intermediate amateur level."

No computer program has passed the turing test yet. This point is invalid.



Sure they can beat us on chess. ON CHESS, it's a specific mind game with very specific rules. World, however has no specific rules.


No, there'll always be people controlling machines. And if you make everything "automatic", the guys in charge will be those who code the software. Like in a dictatorship.


No


This paragraph shows stupidity of zeitgeist sect members.[/list]

Regarding automation, here's an excellent article recently published by Daniel Lemire.
http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2011/05/27/automation-will-make-your-job-obsolete-no-matter-who-you-are/

I was part of the first generation of kids to receive computers as gifts. I was also part of the first generation of professionals to adopt computer-assisted tele-work: I can work from my bedroom just as efficiently as from my campus office. I routinely organize and attend meetings while I am at random locations. This week-end, my 7 year-old son  repaired our vacuum-cleaning robot by taking it apart on the kitchen floor:  the contacts with the battery were dirty. Meanwhile, I was on the kitchen table building a solar-powered robot.

Computers can already be superior to human beings on most specialized tasks:

• Researchers have recently found that a computer persona could more engaging socially than a bona fide human being. This person you are chatting with on Facebook or Twitter, are you sure it is a human being? Maybe you are dealing with a robot, and that is why this person is so responsive and systematically friendly. I suspect that most software is asocial simply because we did not bother to implement sociability.
• Computers can beat any human being at chess and checker. In fact, you could play 1 million games of checker against a computer, and we know you would never win, not once. How do computers beat you? Not through logic alone. They rely on an extensive database: that is, they have experience, more experience than any human being. Computers show creativity and good judgment when playing these games.
• A tool like Google Mail sorts my mail automatically for me, and archives it nicely. This used to require a human being making judgement calls about what mail was junk, what mail was high priority, and so on. Yet it has been nicely automated.
  Alas our technology is critically limited: we are unable to give computers general intelligence. Does it matter as far as automation is concerned? I believe that general intelligence is overrated in the workplace.

For example, can computers without general intelligence replace managers and accountants? Consider Walmart. We often think of Walmart as a discount store, but it is also the direct result of the largest and most ambitious business automation project ever. Walmart is not killing its competitors just by offering poor wages: it is killing them because it has automated much of the supply and accounting management.

Could computers replace teachers? Khan Academy shows that the lecture component has already been replaced. What about grading? In the software industry, we already use on a large scale automated testing: to determine whether a candidate can program in Java, he is asked to fill out an online questionnaire. Employers rely on these tests more than on college grades. The only reason college professors still grade Calculus and programming assignments by hand is that they lack the incentive to automate it. But have no fear: for-profit colleges are already hard at work automating everything. Would students prefer to have a “personal touch”? I don’t think so: I believe students would rather have quick and detailed automated  feedback than wait for a tired professor to scribble a few notes in the margin of their assignment. (And let us be honest: most marking is done by underpaid teaching assistants who don’t care that much).

In fact, most jobs require little general intelligence:

Jobs are highly specialized. You can sum up 80% of what most people do with 4 or 5 different specific tasks. In most organizations, it is a major faux pas to ask the wrong person: there is a one-to-one matching between people and tasks.
Jobs don’t require that you to understand much of what is going on. You only need to fake some understanding of the context the same way a spam filter fakes an understanding of your emails. Do you think that the salesman at the appliance store knows why some dishwashers have a shredder and some don’t, and why it matters? Do you think that the professors know what the job market is like for their graduates?
Nevertheless, some believe their job cannot be automated. Most of them are wrong.

For example… Surely, we won’t replace politicians by robots? We may not replace them, but they will become obsolete anyhow. I believe that computers enable a different from of government altogether where we have little need for politicians. In most of the western world, we use representative democracy, with local politicians being elected and sent to a central government, where they form the ruling class. Yet with an entire population having Internet access, we don’t need politicians to represent the people, people can speak for themselves. Most politicians are already more or less powerless since nobody really believe they represent their people. You think that government without professional politicians would be chaos? I am sure there are people who think that without newspapers, individuals cannot be informed.

To a large extend, whether you are a  lawyer, a medical doctor, a professor or a politician, you already are obsolete. We are just waiting for someone to write the software that will replace you. You replacement won’t pass the Turing test, but nobody will care.

The XPrize is a perfect example of what a team of professionals can accomplish, but it has its limits. That's why we need a social direction as well, because otherwise good projects will remain in the profit motive mentality, with all its drawbacks.


That is incorrect. It did at the beginning, now we finally moved on and separated.


That is incorrect as well.

We have working teams, one of which is Technology, coordinated by a Space Shuttle Systems Engineer working for NASA, who is working on a prototype of efficient Hydroponic system, to be released as Open Source project once it's completed.

In the Italian chapter, our technology team is currently working on three projects: portable aquaponics for homes, inexpensive water purification system for poor families in third world countries and portable electric generators, all Open Source.


As I said, we are still in our infancy, so it will take time. However, these programs are already in use by the military and the CIA, if the world was more peaceful they could release the source for everyone to benefit from.

Again, culture and peace, you see?


Believe what you like, we are very separate, both in theoretical and in practical terms.


That is the first actual based criticism that you offered, and it's the same I gave to the movement before joining in. Then I decided to change the movement and bring that idea inside.


TZM recognises all those amazing projects and sees the potential of applying that approach globally.


You could not be more wrong. I am actually the first critic of TZM, but instead of just complaining and bitching about it I actually work to improve it.


Sure, easiest thing in the world.
http://vimeo.com/user3541570/videos

FYI, I like Ben McLeish's videos better.

And here's a talk I gave at a symposium a few months ago, with English subs:
http://www.federicopistono.org/blog/the-zeitgeist-movement-symposium-with-federico-pistono


LOL.

As an example, I noticed that Peter wasn't much into OSS and the like. Instead of jerking off to his ignorance, I introduced him to the ideas of FOSS, Creative Commons and everything else. As a result, he integrated them into his view and researched the material. He even put the RepRap project on his latest work: Zeitgeist Moving Forward, along with releasing a lot of material under CC-BY-NC-SA.

So, that was one thing, and it was cleared up pretty easily. Now I'm trying to make him understand that we need to work on the documents collaboratively, in a wikipedia style approach, with guidelines decided upon by the community using rational consensus, instead of what's happening now.

As you can see, I have a working mind and I don't blindly accept whatever comes out of his mouth.

Maybe you had bad experiences with someone else, but please don't project them to everyone without considering what they are actually saying.

That's my point. It actually boils the ideas down and puts them into practice.