A Resource Based Economy - page 61. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Crypt_Current

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Shame on everything; regret nothing.

Quote from: grondilu on November 08, 2012, 10:58:58 AM

Quote from: mobodick on November 08, 2012, 10:25:25 AM

I think you are confused about what an AI is.
AI doesn't imply self-awareness or conciousness.
You can make an AI that just regulates stuff without ever asking questions.

Yeah I mentioned that earlier. You need intelligence so that your machines can be autonomous and creative in their decision-making.

But you want to avoid self-awareness because you want to make sure they will obey.

Consciousness is only desirable if you want to create a computational replica of your mind. If you want immortality or something.

IMO conscious machines would be preferable because they would be more able to relate to us emotionally, and so any advancement in power with their side (hypothetically versus humans) would not be totally against humanity -- i.e. it would be possible for the advanced magical powerful robot elite to love us, and construct happy environments to keep us in for nostalgic remembrance (aka an afterlife).

mobodick

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: grondilu on November 08, 2012, 10:58:58 AM

Quote from: mobodick on November 08, 2012, 10:25:25 AM

I think you are confused about what an AI is.
AI doesn't imply self-awareness or conciousness.
You can make an AI that just regulates stuff without ever asking questions.

Yeah I mentioned that earlier. You need intelligence so that your machines can be autonomous and creative in their decision-making.

But you want to avoid self-awareness because you want to make sure they will obey.

Consciousness is only desirable if you want to create a computational replica of your mind. If you want immortality or something.

Well, i don't think you want creativity in this case.
The whole idea of RBE is that the decisions the AI takes are more scientifically sound than what humans could oversee. So the idea is that it needs to be based on facts, not creativity.
Atonomy is not a problem per se. Your computer does lots and lots of autonomous things.
The problem is maybe that we would not like the cold hard decisions of such a system would make without our personal concent and with no human emotions to fall back on.

Crypt_Current

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Shame on everything; regret nothing.

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 08, 2012, 10:53:58 AM

Quote from: Crypt_Current on November 07, 2012, 11:57:23 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 07, 2012, 05:24:28 PM

Imagine a world where both a Binding Contract and Artificial Intelligence are considered the product of fanatic nutjobs imagination as a general consensus in society.

The world would be so much better.

Electricity is arguably a product of "fanatic nutjobs imagination" ... If you have any problems with it, like the nice man from the electric ~~monopoly~~ company said when he came to turn my power off one time,
"There are other alternatives"

...
I looked at him like Huh

and flipped him off as hard as I could.

Artificial Intelligence is a cybernetically impossible transformation. It's just not possible to create it, by definition.

Machines can be arbitrarily complex but they are defined in such a way that they depend on Man to control them. In computer science AI is used as a weasel word to describe mechanisms which attempt to solve problems using mathematical concepts which should, in theory enable the machine to compute solutions for problems it wouldn't have sufficient computational strength using other methods.
In transhumanism it refers to self-improving machines which again can not be constructed by definition. Every machine will still have a constraint defined by the parameters it is programmed even if it is able to construct copies of itself and use stochastic processes to fine-tune the parameters.

Nothing is the only thing that is impossible, and I (and I would argue no one else) still do not KNOW this.

mobodick

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lethn on November 08, 2012, 10:46:32 AM

Quote from: mobodick on November 08, 2012, 09:48:27 AM

Quote from: Lethn on November 08, 2012, 08:38:37 AM

Hey guys, I just thought of a brilliant idea, why don't we let children learn whatever the hell they want and form their own opinions instead of force feed them bullshit from either side? Because I've got to tell you, I've been on the receiving end of that and it's exceptionally unpleasant when morons tell you to learn something or accept it without giving any reasoning behind it.

Yeah, THERE is a sure-fire way to destroy society...
Let's produce a generation of people whose skills completely do not match societies demand.
You're reasoning from a very privileged position. Not all humans on earth can do just what they like because the whole thing would collapse.
It is not something you could do without brutal consequences.

LOL you mean to tell me you can say with a straight face that a detached and delusional political class knows better than human beings who have to work for a living what skills are in demand in the current market? Don't make me mock you, because I will.

In your system those hard working skilled worker would have never acquired the skills needed because when they enter the makrket they are clueless. As a child, when the time is optimal to get skilled, they would have absolutely no idea of what the market requires.
So yes, the deluded politicians still have a better idea about these things than a kid that needs to decide a future for themselfs.
If you would let that choice to the people you would get a dysfunctional society because noone wants to do what needs to be done.

grondilu

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1080

Quote from: mobodick on November 08, 2012, 10:25:25 AM

I think you are confused about what an AI is.
AI doesn't imply self-awareness or conciousness.
You can make an AI that just regulates stuff without ever asking questions.

Yeah I mentioned that earlier. You need intelligence so that your machines can be autonomous and creative in their decision-making.

But you want to avoid self-awareness because you want to make sure they will obey.

Consciousness is only desirable if you want to create a computational replica of your mind. If you want immortality or something.

mobodick

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Crypt_Current on November 08, 2012, 10:53:01 AM

Quote from: mobodick on November 08, 2012, 09:48:27 AM

Quote from: Lethn on November 08, 2012, 08:38:37 AM

Hey guys, I just thought of a brilliant idea, why don't we let children learn whatever the hell they want and form their own opinions instead of force feed them bullshit from either side? Because I've got to tell you, I've been on the receiving end of that and it's exceptionally unpleasant when morons tell you to learn something or accept it without giving any reasoning behind it.

Yeah, THERE is a sure-fire way to destroy society...
Let's produce a generation of people whose skills completely do not match societies demand.
You're reasoning from a very privileged position. Not all humans on earth can do just what they like because the whole thing would collapse.
It is not something you could do without brutal consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling

Yes, i know these things.
I'm just telling you that these are elitist ideas as it is unrealistic to let all of humanity develop along these lines. So for most people on earth this is a bullshit idea that won't bring food in the mouths of their families.
It's a nice way for the elites to stay elite, but it is not a way to transform society. Society would collapse.

Crypt_Current

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Shame on everything; regret nothing.

Quote from: memvola on November 08, 2012, 09:41:10 AM

Now tell me where ZG differs, and which technological advance have changed this picture. If these people want to be taken seriously, they need to stop distancing themselves from communism and work with Marxist academics to solve problems of Marxism with the technology and science they obviously are so competent with.

Thank you; agreed.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: mobodick on November 08, 2012, 10:25:25 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 08, 2012, 10:07:15 AM

Quote from: memvola on November 08, 2012, 09:55:22 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 08, 2012, 09:47:05 AM

Yes, Zeitgeist is communism in another skin. Adding computers and robots does not make a planned economy work.

Actually the idea of "machines doing all the work" wouldn't be a too alien idea to the people leading the industrial revolution. The machines are indeed doing almost all of it now if you take into account what "work" meant back then.

It's not "robots do all the work" that's the issue here. It's the "AI plans the economy" that causes me to worry.

I think you are confused about what an AI is.
AI doesn't imply self-awareness or conciousness.

Nothing I said required or even implied that the AI that "got it into it's head" that humans were getting in the way would be conscious. A computer system designed to run an economy efficiently would almost by definition see humans as inefficiencies and act to remove them.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: Crypt_Current on November 07, 2012, 11:57:23 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 07, 2012, 05:24:28 PM

Imagine a world where both a Binding Contract and Artificial Intelligence are considered the product of fanatic nutjobs imagination as a general consensus in society.

The world would be so much better.

Electricity is arguably a product of "fanatic nutjobs imagination" ... If you have any problems with it, like the nice man from the electric ~~monopoly~~ company said when he came to turn my power off one time,
"There are other alternatives"

...
I looked at him like Huh

and flipped him off as hard as I could.

Artificial Intelligence is a cybernetically impossible transformation. It's just not possible to create it, by definition.

Machines can be arbitrarily complex but they are defined in such a way that they depend on Man to control them. In computer science AI is used as a weasel word to describe mechanisms which attempt to solve problems using mathematical concepts which should, in theory enable the machine to compute solutions for problems it wouldn't have sufficient computational strength using other methods.
In transhumanism it refers to self-improving machines which again can not be constructed by definition. Every machine will still have a constraint defined by the parameters it is programmed even if it is able to construct copies of itself and use stochastic processes to fine-tune the parameters.

mobodick

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: blablahblah on November 08, 2012, 10:22:07 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 08, 2012, 10:07:15 AM

It's not "robots do all the work" that's the issue here. It's the "AI plans the economy" that causes me to worry. AI in general gives me the heebie-jeebies, putting one in charge of the economy just terrifies me. Maybe it would work. For a while. Until the AI got it into it's head that humans were mucking up it's smooth flow of goods... More likely, like any previous attempt at central planning, it will fail utterly.

Let the market decide the prices of goods and services, and the prices will decide what gets produced.

Gotta agree with you there. For one thing, these ZM hippies don't seem to understand that there is no such thing as AI! It's a made-up fantasy by sci-fi writers and Hollywood film producers. No computer, robot, or other 'machine' in existence (or that ever existed) possesses any intelligence whatsoever. Computers are only capable of obeying exact instructions that they are told to do.
All artificial.
Zero intelligence.

Due to this fact of life, if computers were to be used as some kind of central planning tool, people would have to do the programming themselves. Due to the extreme potential for incompetence and corruption at this step (as with other styles of central planning), this is a fatal flaw in the Zeitgeist pipe dream.

As for 'the singularity', I call bullshit on that one too. It can't be done. Someone show me a compelling argument that it's theoretically possible for machines to have consciousness, and I will eat my words.

Your definition of intelligence is too specific.
What you propably talk about is human intelligence.
And sure enough, human intelligence is so specific that we would need to recreate most structures of the brain to create such an intelligence.
But intelligence is a much broader concept.
Intelligence is best classified as an information system for dealing with the environment.
In that view even DNA molecules contain intelligence because they lead to specific manipulations of the environment.
Everything that manipulates the environment in a deliberate manner (acting on information) can be said to possess intelligence.
Human intelligence is just a very very specific case of intelligence.
In the case of an AI controling society, there is nothing that requires that AI to be concious or something like that.

Crypt_Current

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Shame on everything; regret nothing.

Quote from: mobodick on November 08, 2012, 09:48:27 AM

Quote from: Lethn on November 08, 2012, 08:38:37 AM

Hey guys, I just thought of a brilliant idea, why don't we let children learn whatever the hell they want and form their own opinions instead of force feed them bullshit from either side? Because I've got to tell you, I've been on the receiving end of that and it's exceptionally unpleasant when morons tell you to learn something or accept it without giving any reasoning behind it.

Yeah, THERE is a sure-fire way to destroy society...
Let's produce a generation of people whose skills completely do not match societies demand.
You're reasoning from a very privileged position. Not all humans on earth can do just what they like because the whole thing would collapse.
It is not something you could do without brutal consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling

Crypt_Current

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Shame on everything; regret nothing.

Quote from: myrkul on November 08, 2012, 10:35:05 AM

Navel gazing. High-tech navel gazing, but navel gazing nonetheless.

I disagree, because I believe the Final Anthropic Principle does NOT contradict the Copernican Principle, specifically for the reason that there is a wide-spread assumption that "intelligent information processing" necessarily equates to "human", which it does not. THAT assumption is the arrogance that its creators supposedly hate so much.

Lethn

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1000

Quote from: mobodick on November 08, 2012, 09:48:27 AM

Quote from: Lethn on November 08, 2012, 08:38:37 AM

Hey guys, I just thought of a brilliant idea, why don't we let children learn whatever the hell they want and form their own opinions instead of force feed them bullshit from either side? Because I've got to tell you, I've been on the receiving end of that and it's exceptionally unpleasant when morons tell you to learn something or accept it without giving any reasoning behind it.

Yeah, THERE is a sure-fire way to destroy society...
Let's produce a generation of people whose skills completely do not match societies demand.
You're reasoning from a very privileged position. Not all humans on earth can do just what they like because the whole thing would collapse.
It is not something you could do without brutal consequences.

LOL you mean to tell me you can say with a straight face that a detached and delusional political class knows better than human beings who have to work for a living what skills are in demand in the current market? Don't make me mock you, because I will.

Crypt_Current

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Shame on everything; regret nothing.

Quote from: grondilu on November 08, 2012, 10:30:53 AM

Quote from: blablahblah on November 08, 2012, 10:22:07 AM

As for 'the singularity', I call bullshit on that one too. It can't be done. Someone show me a compelling argument that it's theoretically possible for machines to have consciousness, and I will eat my words.

Why wouldn't it be possible? Why your brain would be so different from a machine? It's just a bunch of cells, with a chemico-electric behavior that can be modelled.

^ this. Biology is just carbon-based biomechanical machines... It's the complexity of the system that provides for emergent intelligence.

Intelligence is an emergent thing, not an inherent thing, born from complexity. Use google or wikipedia on these terms, you will find much information.
There is no reason why intelligence could not emerge in a silicon or otherwise non-carbon based anatomy.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: grondilu on November 08, 2012, 09:56:51 AM

Quote

Are you familiar with Tipler's Omega Point Theory?

Not at all.

Navel gazing. High-tech navel gazing, but navel gazing nonetheless.

Quote from: blablahblah on November 08, 2012, 10:22:07 AM

As for 'the singularity', I call bullshit on that one too. It can't be done. Someone show me a compelling argument that it's theoretically possible for machines to have consciousness, and I will eat my words.

We're not even concrete on what consciousness is. We don't know the mechanism of it, we don't know why it happened, we don't know why it stops. About the only thing we do know is that there is a lot we do not know.

Quote from: kjj on November 08, 2012, 10:20:26 AM

They still thought it was the best option...

And about 70-odd years later, Gustave de Molinari came up with a better one.

grondilu

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1080

Quote from: blablahblah on November 08, 2012, 10:22:07 AM

As for 'the singularity', I call bullshit on that one too. It can't be done. Someone show me a compelling argument that it's theoretically possible for machines to have consciousness, and I will eat my words.

Why wouldn't it be possible? Why your brain would be so different from a machine? It's just a bunch of cells, with a chemico-electric behavior that can be modelled.

mobodick

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on November 08, 2012, 10:07:15 AM

Quote from: memvola on November 08, 2012, 09:55:22 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 08, 2012, 09:47:05 AM

Yes, Zeitgeist is communism in another skin. Adding computers and robots does not make a planned economy work.

Actually the idea of "machines doing all the work" wouldn't be a too alien idea to the people leading the industrial revolution. The machines are indeed doing almost all of it now if you take into account what "work" meant back then.

It's not "robots do all the work" that's the issue here. It's the "AI plans the economy" that causes me to worry. AI in general gives me the heebie-jeebies, putting one in charge of the economy just terrifies me. Maybe it would work. For a while. Until the AI got it into it's head that humans were mucking up it's smooth flow of goods... More likely, like any previous attempt at central planning, it will fail utterly.

Let the market decide the prices of goods and services, and the prices will decide what gets produced.

I think you are confused about what an AI is.
AI doesn't imply self-awareness or conciousness.
You can make an AI that just regulates stuff without ever asking questions.
What IS worriesome, tho, is that we may not be able to understand all its decisions.
We may not be able to predict the outcome of what we ask it to do, even if the coice was all ours.
It is in general a bad thing to let such a big system depend on such a central kind of single point of failure, and it's even worse to not know exactly how such a point functions.
It would just be bad design.

blablahblah

hero member

Activity: 775

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on November 08, 2012, 10:07:15 AM

It's not "robots do all the work" that's the issue here. It's the "AI plans the economy" that causes me to worry. AI in general gives me the heebie-jeebies, putting one in charge of the economy just terrifies me. Maybe it would work. For a while. Until the AI got it into it's head that humans were mucking up it's smooth flow of goods... More likely, like any previous attempt at central planning, it will fail utterly.

Let the market decide the prices of goods and services, and the prices will decide what gets produced.

Gotta agree with you there. For one thing, these ZM hippies don't seem to understand that there is no such thing as AI! It's a made-up fantasy by sci-fi writers and Hollywood film producers. No computer, robot, or other 'machine' in existence (or that ever existed) possesses any intelligence whatsoever. Computers are only capable of obeying exact instructions that they are told to do.
All artificial.
Zero intelligence.

Due to this fact of life, if computers were to be used as some kind of central planning tool, people would have to do the programming themselves. Due to the extreme potential for incompetence and corruption at this step (as with other styles of central planning), this is a fatal flaw in the Zeitgeist pipe dream.

As for 'the singularity', I call bullshit on that one too. It can't be done. Someone show me a compelling argument that it's theoretically possible for machines to have consciousness, and I will eat my words.

kjj

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1026

Quote from: Crypt_Current on November 08, 2012, 09:26:44 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 08, 2012, 09:15:59 AM

Adding "techno-" to a failed system does not magically make it work.

Isn't this sort of what Washington and those colonial fruits did with the democracy of the ancient greeks/romans? But I'll give this to you: If that's the case, it sure is NOT very reassuring.

This was not a techno-republic. (Side note, you said democracy, which is wrong, the founder rejected that system intentionally.)

The founders were keenly aware that they were making a temporary thing. They were all serious students of history, and they knew damn well how and why Republics died. From Athens and Sparta through Rome to Vienna, they knew that every Republic eventually commits suicide. The collapse of the Venetian Republic was an ongoing event while they were drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and it was well known to the founders.

They still thought it was the best option, and plenty of us still agree today. Some of us even stick around watching the suicide in progress, saying "Not today!".

mobodick

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: memvola on November 08, 2012, 09:55:22 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 08, 2012, 09:47:05 AM

Yes, Zeitgeist is communism in another skin. Adding computers and robots does not make a planned economy work.

Actually the idea of "machines doing all the work" wouldn't be a too alien idea to the people leading the industrial revolution. The machines are indeed doing almost all of it now if you take into account what "work" meant back then.

The problem is that no technology can take away human drives. Notice that since the industrial revolution people don't work that much less, they just work on other things than machine work.
Computers were supposed to do all the rest of the work that machines couldn't do but in the end that didn't lead to less work for the humans. Burn out is a word that was invented quite recently and used extensively during the past few decades.
Our relation with machines is not as simple as 'they do all the work'. We are in a cybernetic loop with society. You cannot easily transplant that to another system of our liking.

Quote from: mobodick on November 08, 2012, 09:48:27 AM

Quote from: Lethn on November 08, 2012, 08:38:37 AM

Hey guys, I just thought of a brilliant idea, why don't we let children learn whatever the hell they want and form their own opinions instead of force feed them bullshit from either side? Because I've got to tell you, I've been on the receiving end of that and it's exceptionally unpleasant when morons tell you to learn something or accept it without giving any reasoning behind it.

Yeah, THERE is a sure-fire way to destroy society...
Let's produce a generation of people whose skills completely do not match societies demand.
You're reasoning from a very privileged position. Not all humans on earth can do just what they like because the whole thing would collapse.
It is not something you could do without brutal consequences.

You lose specialized people and gain people who can in fact think. I don't know what the consequences would be though.

No, it doesn't work that simple.
For one, MOST people on earth do not feel the need to think for themselfs on this scale very much.
So you won't get back a lot 'thinkers' for those uneducated workers.

Then the thinkers, they would thin out as well.
They would become unappreciated and noone would want them around.
Being dumb would become the prevailing local maximum.

It would create a disaster as companies wouldn't be able to hire people with the right skills.

Now i agree that there are exceptions. There are always exceptions.
And a human cannot continue personal development without a certain degree of freedom.
But most people don't care about reaching this kind of enlightment and just want to work for food so they can have kids and support their family.

Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 61. (Read 288375 times)