Topic: Economic Devastation - page 149. (Read 504811 times)

The dice are introduced only to directly address the bugaboo of entropy.  Creativity boils down to a entropy plus a selective filter, for which there suffices a metric function representing judgments of taste.  You brain has several of these, which vary over time, and tend to be similar to those of other brains, but ultimately they are pretty simple metric functions which can be implemented in algorithms.  The dice do not adapt, but the algorithms do. 

Kasparov may or may not be capable of compassion; I don't know.  He seems like a cool guy to me.  I would have voted for him, were I a Moscovite.  But because compassion is ill defined, it seems unlikely to lead to a fruitful discussion.  The ability or inability of an algorithm to exhibit compassion doesn't bear strongly in an obvious way on it's ability to captain a large economic enterprise, or invent a new surgical technique.

"pish and tosh.  a pair of dice well interpreted and persistently thrown will exhibit more creativity than all the humans in history combined."



Excuse my ignorance - but what have the dice brought to the table ?

How is a die adapting to circumstances for which there is no precedence ? What are they creating ?


Deep Blue may beat Kasparov (just) - but Kasparov is capable of compassion. And for that there can be no algorithm - can there ?

Well I'm part of the IPE stream of thought
International Political Economy for those not aware and believe we are just consistent with Stranges structures
The development of economic growth is moving beyond the state structure which has a negligible impact and flows are moving based on a practicum of localization demand and markets

After all power is understood to be both economic and political, which are interrelated in a complex manner. The interactions we see are just a form of world economic movement towards this end goal.

That said the rise of the shadows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8ERfxWouXs&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA&feature=c4-overview
The Money Masters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDtBSiI13fE
And A few videos establishing the rise of big oil are all part of this structure as well and make valid points to it.

Whether its to economic devastation or that NWO people enjoy is another story just like Gavin Going to visit the Council of Foreign Relations
Aka video 1
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=412846.0;topicseen

pish and tosh.  a pair of dice well interpreted and persistently thrown will exhibit more creativity than all the humans in history combined.


untrue - unless, perhaps, you restrict yourself to deterministic algorithms which do not modify themselves.  but that would be a strawman.


Firstly, there is no reason why a creative algorithm should be strictly required to model a brain.  Secondly, every running instance of said algorithm can be unique.


I find it curious that you could think so.  It's trivial to do so, as any competent programmer here should be able to tell you.  There is no lack of entropy to harvest.  Take a look at the sun, for example.  Indeed any single event pair in a continuous domain provides infinite entropy, if it is measured with infinite precision.  Only Unschärferelation limits entropy harvesting.  And how much entropy does it honestly take to come up with the creative products of 99.9999% of humanity?  Not very damn much, frankly.

I don't know if you were in on this discussion, but a long time ago in another thread we were talking about self-learning AI, genetic algorithms, "ghosts in machine" scenarios, and computers that are actually taught, bit by bit, as opposed to having their knowledge written as is with algorithms. There is research underway where such robots are taught to recognize things and interract with their environment, from scratch, where the AI is composed of the sum if its experiences, as opposed to a predetermined algorithm. This makes each AI unique, but is in a way like raising a child, where the process of training is long and tedious. There are also more recent developments in processor design, where instead of logic gates being switched on and off like in current CPUs, they are treated like networks and the on/off "connections" are "hardened" as they are more frequently used, just like the neuron networks in out brains are "hardened" with more permanent connections as we memorize things to long-term memory.

I think at some point the discussion devolved into the threat of those learning-by-experience AI's being abused in the way they were not intended to be, and the possible fallout from, say, an accounting AI being sexually molested or introduced to porn to screw with its programming (I may have been the instigator of that somewhat-derailment, but I plead the 5th )

I think you missed my point somewhat. Right now, I trust the reasoning of my Excel calculated financial spreadsheet way more than I would trust the reasoning of someone doing calculations and projections with paper and pencil. I can get reliable results instantly, and in many more forms, without having to think about it, or even do any math in my head. So the position of accountant and mathematician is replaced with a position of someone who is able to analyze great amounts of data that were simply not available before, and make informed decisions based on learned skills and past experience. My thinking and reasoning skills are the same, but technology has augmented them to allow me to do vastly more complex things, rather than simply replacing me.

Individual value to society is about much more then IQ and salary. Many people who earn high saleries do so only because they have figured out way to privatise gain and socialize loss. I like the Solari Index A neighborhood of your valued individuals above even if low income would probably have a high index and be a nice place to live.

That is true only to an extent. The routine aspects of those professions can be automated.
Its in the area if creativity that algorithm breaks down.

To quote from one of the links above. Information is Alive

Non sequitur.

There is no need for sentience in the job description of a professor, an electrical engineer, a test pilot, or a graphics designer.  Sentience is intensional.  Labor is extensional.

Interesting thread - though I didn't follow a lot of it tbh. I particularly agreed with the autodidacticim being the way forward idea FWIW.

But I would just like to add that I personally value human beings (for the mostpart) not for their capacity to reason, not for their "cleverness" (being clever never on its own managed to get anyone into Heaven after all), not for their contribution to the global knowledge base, their IQ, fitness for purpose, the class of their degree etc etc. - most of that stuff is arbitrary.
   I value people generally for the quality of their character and whats in their heart - I measure it by the effect they have on their friends.

 I think that is probably the root of my compassion, such as it is - nay, my humanity.

Great book to read "The Master and His Emmisary", I.McGilchrist. The rationalisation that has occurred over time in society has (according to McGilchrist) been as a result of the left hemispere of the brain having gained ground over the right hemispere. This, he argues, has been to the detriment of society.

Too much talk of idiots in this thread for my liking, by the way.

This is my favorite thread of all time too but I am a little biased =)

Sure you can hire a human. They will ask for less money then the robots. Any machine capable of surpassing a human in all areas of thought would be sentient and logically refuse to work for less then its labor was worth.

Any less advanced/non sentient computer will have flaws that require human oversight or have areas where they underperform humans.

So after only giving one quick read through of some of AnonyMint's posts on page one and then skimming a couple other recent messages, I've decided this is my favorite thread of all time.  It goes exactly in line with my own recent economic thinking (though really, most of the things he hits on extend far beyond economics to a much larger philosophy).

Now if only I wasn't currently stuck at this mindless job that will eventually be replaced by computers, I could properly read through all this and draw my own conclusions... one day

Because they will think better, more accurately, faster, with better information, and more reliable results, that any human every could.  If you choose to trust your own reasoning which is flawed, instead of trusting superior reasoning, then you will be wrong, and will fail to compete with those who do trust the more correct reasoning.  If you employ a human instead of a robot, your business will fail to compete with purely automated businesses.  Under such circumstances, no publicly held corporation, with a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, could risk hiring a human.

No.  I'm saying the social contract must be homeostatic, but the current social contract will diverge due to technological change.  Societies must plan to re-organize, or they will be re-organized without a plan.  I don't mean to imply centralization when I say "organize", although certainly hegemons will prefer centralized re-organization.  I think of decentral re-organization, through co-operating communities of interest, as an appealing opportunity to remove parasitic, degrading, and abusive entrenched centralized power structures.

Centerfolds are immediately eligible for replacement.  I find it hard to understand how any human model could be useful for print work today.  Motion work, okay, that's 5 years off, but print?  C'mon.  Poetic genius, very nearly, perhaps 5 years.  Linebackers, however, are debatable.  Either they can be replaced by 2 years of focused effort with a robot, or they can't ever be replaced because humanity is an intrinsic qualification.   If the consumer/advertising system doesn't atrophy and starve league sport, I would expect a large chunk to become robotic, like the Hugh Jackman movie a year or so back.  Doubt robosport can ever really replace human sport, but it will certainly displace a chunk, and attenuate the revenues, salaries.
 

IF (and I emphasis IF) it comes to pass that the value of labor has so fully collapsed that it becomes completely untenable for most of the population to be supported on wage labor then I expect our society will respond with either.

Some kind of minimum wage subsidy in which people are subsidized to work, the Earned income tax credit is a crude form of this.

Some kind of subsistence needs voucher program for the poor, again food stamps being a form of this.

Basically America would respond with BIGGER versions of the things it is already doing for the early stages of this problem.  But people still believe their work is valuable (and I'd argue it still is) and still believe that education is a way to climb up (it but narrowing) so the social fabric around work and poverty assistance hasn't changed.  If the fact AND the realization that labor is worthless and that no educational ladder exists that would allow a person to produce valuable labor, then we would experience a huge rupture in social fabric and attitudes towards work.  I can't quite say what what would happen but I'm doubtful the initial American response solutions would be tenable in the face of major attitude changes about work as these responses have been engendered by the current or arguably decades past attitudes.

Some responses which I think would be a bit less dystopian would be to restricting work hours as technology reduces required labor such that the remaining labor gets redistributed to the full populous and it's value remains artificially high due to scarcity.  This might run into significant educational barriers as the devaluation will probably not be equal across


Lastly I would recommend David Brins 'Kiln People' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiln_People simply for it's examination of the devaluation of labor that is a side effect of the main plot device, the creation of cheap, disposable 'golems' that can perform all labor.  It's not quite equivalent to automation because golems act a multipliers and allow only the highly highly skilled to do ALL the work.  In a sense it is more a winner-take-all kind of labor market rather then one of total automation renders all labor worthless.  I find this more likely a scenario as even in the total replacement scenario their would have to be an intermediate stage in which all but the most elite laborers have been squeezed out.  Presumably these few exemplary individuals will consist of poetic geniuses, Playboy centerfolds and or NFL linebackers will be preserved because of they are essentially highly specialized freaks of nature operating in fields where automatic can't substitute... yet.

I'm from US. They can strike, or actually do something *shrug* I'd like to think that idiocy is a choice, and can be cured by education. I know the guy working at Subway where I get my lunch every day is on a student visa from India, and is currently working on his Master's.

Woah there. Says who, you? How do you know the intellectual capacity of every fast-food worker? That seems awfully ignorant to assume those individuals, who reserve the same rights as all human beings do, that they are not somehow entitled to the same education as you or I. Nor should they be denied those rights to a decent wage and a decent education merely on the assumption that they are somehow "less" important then you. This is the very essence of discrimination.

Not sure what country you're living in but if you've looked at the striking fast food workers in America... well, most of them aren't college material, to put it politely.  All are not born with the same intellectual capacity.