Topic: Is a Madmax outcome coming before 2020? Thus do we need anonymity? - page 32. (Read 102789 times)

No it is logic.

For example, Godel's incompleteness theorem is somewhat related-- a computable system can't be both complete and consistent.

---

That doesn't make any sense. The orthogonal probabilities in a free market means many different things are possible and occurring. If there was only one, the entropy is minimized not maximized. Even the Second Law of Thermodynamics says the entropy of the universe trends to maximum.


Sigh. Please reread what I wrote in reply to you upthread. For example, to be diverse requires that they can't think as one, and that the information doesn't move in real-time to a centralized consciousness (decision making) for a groupwise superiority over humans.

Perhaps CoinCube can help explain. I really have to do some other things.


I already explained upthread that is no measurement of "better", only there exist different subjective choices that different actors make.


Because you still don't admit that there is no such metric for "more adaptable" or "better".

Everything is chance and local gradients towards local choices about optimums. There is no global, omniscient God and if there was then for that God, the past and present are already 100% known, i.e. for God there is no more chance nor probabilities less than 1.

Remember entropy is maximized when the orthogonal probabilities are minimized and spread among the most possible diverse orthogonal outcomes. Not when there is only one result.

That is borderline tautological (in the sense that is self-evident). To have infinite possibilities but having the odds always lead to just one of them is pretty much the same as having only one possible outcome but the odds being the same for any possible outcome.


But still, nothing in that prevents machines from having access to both enough diversity and enough random values.




Sure, chaotic systems are hard to manipulate towards any specific goal in the long term; but machines can do it better than humans. Perfection is unattainable, i agree; but machines don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans. And i don't see how anything short of extinction of the human species could prevent humanity from eventually giving birth to a self-improving AI that improves itself better than humans could. Such a life-form would be more adaptable than anything Earth has ever seen; capable of trying more simultaneous evolutive routes than the whole organic biome combined.


Humans are already quite adaptable in spite of their limitations; we are changing the world in a scale never seen since primordial bacteria poisoned the planet's atmosphere with oxygen; now imagine the impact an invasive species that is to us what we are to those primordial bacteria will have.

NO.  (This was in response to the OP's post)

You continue to miss the point, there is no measurement for "best" even for an individual or a group. It is always a subjective judgment. Is an abortion today best or not? Should you take that birth control pill or not? What facets did we tradeoff to maximize some function of longevity, happiness, health, measurement of educational attainment, etc?

Evolution is only "correct" in retrospect, i.e. that race evolved. How it is evolved is chaotic, and other potential outcomes would have been just as correct in other ways, i.e. if the dinosaurs prevailed and primates never came into existence as a result or some other result. There were zillions of little incremental individual choices made and there is no overall metric of fitness. Besides is dynamic and coinductive function (i.e. irreversible).

You may decide you prefer an outcome and so attaining that goal is your definition of best. But that is precisely subjective individual or groupwise choice. It is not an objective metric. I already explained to you that an objective measurement would eliminate chance (because there is only one possible best choice), which means you would not exist (in the universe of chance and thus past and present would collapse into a single infinitesimal point because everything can be known a priori and thus diversity is reduced to one outcome).

The machine can't be better at something (i.e. diversity) that has no objective measurement! It can help the human optimize a choice the human made. Or the machine could make its own random choices. You fundamentally don't understand that the universe is made of entropy, i.e. orthogonal probabilities. I've explained to you why it can only be that way, else nothing exists. But I don't demand you are able to comprehend or agree. So I will stop here. I do believe if you could understand, you would agree. I think it is lack of understanding of why we can't exist if there is no subjectively. Chance and diversity require each other. It is a very interesting conceptual discovery. I would expect some other scientists or philosophers had this discovery, but I am not aware of who they are.

There isn't an universal "best outcome", but there are outcomes that are the best of all predicted possibilities for a single individual or group. Machines can be made to calculate the inputs required for such a best outcome, and those that calculate the moves for the best outcome for themselves, and perform those moves, in the long term will be the ones that survive all others; so those are gonna be Humanity's competitors, if there is still any humans left by that point.

Evolution doesn't care about perfection, anything that is good enough keeps going (as long as it remains good enough). Even in the absence of any external evolutionary pressure, the pressure for self-reproduction emerges by the simple fact that patterns that don't perpetuate themselves cease to be.


In other words, machines don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans for there to be reason for concern.

They might not be the last new form of life the planet will see; but the odds are big that they'll be the last one humans will (if post-singularity AIs are ever created, of course).



I think you're underestimating what it means to think better than humans. Perhaps, ironically, because you believe you do. Lemme put it another way, even if that was the case, the difference is you can't improve your mind as efficiently as a post-singularity AI would be able to; if one was created right now, you would be left behind by at least a few orders of magnitude in the blink of an eye.

You still don't realize you didn't get my point.

And I don't say that to be condescending. Some times there are high IQ concepts that can't be conveyed to the wider population in a forum post or even a concise blog article. They require chapters of images and explanatory text to paint the concept into the mind of others.

All I can say concisely is try rereading my prior post, as it refutes your reply. Each of the points of your reply were already refuted in the prior post of mine. I guess I would need to expound, but for those who are smart enough, I don't need to expound. I have already stated.

For example, "right often enough" totally ignores the point I made about no one can know what is right, except for themself and even then they really don't know what is right for themself either. They simply made a subjective choice with tradeoffs and impacts. Refer upthread (or the linked related thread) to where I mentioned that infinite shapes tested for interlocking fitness wouldn't be superior to each other, just different.

Life doesn't have a "correct" or "right" result, except to become more diverse.

If there was an objective metric for "correct" or "right", then the present and past would collapse into a single point in time and you would not exist (you would be disconnected from the universe of chance). Even if that was only locally for you (your local coherence). And it has global coherence, then the present and past for the universe would collapse into a single point in time and the entire universe wouldn't exist (because there would not be any change that isn't already known, i.e. no chance, no probabilities, and ZERO ENTROPY).

I believe if I spent some more time on this, I could develop this concept further with mathematical derivation. Which might aid understanding and agreement.

P.S. I edited and augmented my prior post.

If things happen different from the simulation, you adapt the simulation to the new data. You don't need to model the whole universe though; some simplified models can be right often enough that for most practical purposes you don't need to model everything. My point is just that creativity isn't limited to humans, and machines can be better at it; machines can fail better than humans and harvest just the good consequences of failing. Current machines can already beat humans in chess; and we keep making them more and more powerful; if the trend continues for long enough, one day will have machines that will be able to anticipate our moves better than we can anticipate theirs on most things that matter. Humans are more predictable than we like to think we are.



I'm not talking about current economics, i'm talking about the technological singularity (which may be delayed significantly depending on a shitload of factors, including major changes in the economic scenario).

It appears to me that you are entirely missing my point? My point is a very high IQ one, so don't feel rejected.

For example, your statement assumes that there is a way to measure globally what is "better". My entire point is that there is no such metric, and that life is entropic meaning the possibilities (i.e. orthogonal probabilities and diversity) are always expanding, thus no one can know what is better for everyone now, future, or in retrospect. Any one can from their arm chair claim that the present would be better had the past been such and such different, but this is incorrect because we can't change just one thing as other things are impacted in unpredictable ways (this is one reason top-down governance is such a failure, even if there were no corruption). Life is more localized variables than can be communicated to a single a metric in real time. If in fact we could transmit all the variables to a omniscient metric in real-time, then the past and present would collapse into a single point in time and the universe would not exist. Such a God would be quite lonely.

Kuzweil's Technological Singularity is nonsense. It essentially claims computers can become an omniscient God. He claims humans would no longer be able to reason about the future, because computers would be altering it ways and speed we humans can not compute fast enough. But it is already the case that no one can reason with certainty about the future in detail, especially the further it moves away from our localized situation. And he forgets that humans can leverage the computers. He entirely doesn't understand what creativity and knowledge are, nor what our universe is. Refer to my blogs for enlightenment:

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html
http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html

Even if you could simulate all the variables, then you would not have time to run a simulation and then go back and rerun it in real life to your omniscient advantage, because the simulation becomes a component of the real life thus impacting things in ways you can not predict. Don't forget Coase's Theorem and competition.

This is way over most of your heads. I think I will need to carefully write a book on this. And I don't have time right now.

The thing is, computers can make virtual mistakes with no consequences on reality; and then whichever approach works better in the simulation is what the robots will do for real. For some things, computers can already run simulations faster than real-time; it's only a matter of time before most of the relevant things can be simulated faster than a human brain can.

That's not enough. You can still tax property, can still intimidate businesses and buyers into paying fees or following specific rules, can still collect money at the threat of force, old style, where tax collectors would ride around and take some amount of money from townsfolk, regardless of whether they earned anything. I was hoping he had something more, because just that "anonymous currency" thing comes woefully short.
Did he come up with any counterbalances or counterincentives to power at all?

Anonymint proposed counter is the creation of a truly anonymous cryptocurrency that cannot be taxed or tracked by governments. Over time people would flock to such a currency to avoid the ever increasing taxes that are going to occur over the next decade or two.

It's an ambitious agenda. I am interested to see what he comes up with

Considering that (at least according to you) I have been stalking your every post, I haven't seen you propose how to eliminate or counter it yet (yes, I'm aware of this power vacuum, too, and have my own ideas)


The inability to comprehend, or more specifically the pointing out of what were dumb mistakes, weren't just by me. It was also by quite a few of the long-time bitcoin users, miners, and even a few developers. So, when you making proclamations alone in a crowd, and the crowd says "that doesn't make sense," yes, it could be because you are just "too smart" for us, but it is more likely that you are either wrong, or are just really awful at explaining things.

See you in a day or two, when you inevitably come to post here again.

P.S. I hope you're hurrying up on that altcoin of yours, because this thing http://ethereum.org is coming, and it will likely kick the ass of whatever you have planned.

If I took it out of context, I didn't mean to. I see now that there are a lot of other assumptions built into it. I was imagining a completely free market and am not terribly interested in, or capable of, predicting how it would interact with these other macro effects:



You might have misunderstood me here. My original comment describes a negative feedback that suggests an equilibrium that allows for stability in a 'deflationary' (M constant) environment.



I was talking about price inflation/deflation. Bitcoin isn't actually deflationary in the "shrinking money supply" sense (well, lost coins I guess..). I disagree with you if we are talking about a non-intervention market, but it doesn't seem like that's your context.



Ok now I see. I won't go edit what I just wrote to reflect this clarification. Seems to me that your preference for inflation is just expedience.



I wasn't intentionally playing "gotcha". Perhaps this is another reason to record these essays in your blog. As others are saying, it's hard to understand and discuss when everything you've written is scattered in different threads. It'll also help people to understand the motivation behind your altcoin.

I'm very interested in alts that solve Bitcoin's ultimate tragedy of the transaction fee commons and worry that perpetual debasement is the only solution. Good luck.

Creativity can't be expressed in an algorithm i.e. AI, because it spawns accretively from the fact that no two brains and environment path dependencies are identical.

Eric S. Raymond wrote recently about that path dependency. Apparently he hasn't formed the complete generative model of infinity yet though and apparently doesn't comprehend how this impacts his interpretation of a God, so this is one of several examples that causes me to believe I might have a higher abstract IQ than he does, although he clearly has a higher IQ in prose and other areas.

I made some comments about Biblical parables consistency with reality. If you read all my comments in that linked thread, you will clearly see that I don't think a God could be falsifiable. Nor do I think faith is rationale in the context of applying the scientific method. What I think Eric and many scientists miss is the point that the scientific method can NEVER BE COMPLETE (Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem says a signal can not be both band-limited and time-limited), i.e. no person can be omniscient, thus faith is a reality that we operate in by default and not admitting that is a delusion. This conclusion should not be misinterpreted as a violation of free will, and in fact if we could be omniscient then we would not have free will nor exist as past and present would collapse together as one. Eric and other scientists who think they are perfectly rational and devoid of faith are ignorant of this unsavory fact.

P.S. JustSaying is one of the 3 pseudonyms of mine that he banned from his blog.

I would be quite amused if someone could email Eric (mailto:[email protected]) and get him to read this post. Presumably my emails to him go to /dev/null.

I would find it really disappointing if we end up like that before we manage to create a self-improving AI that will take over the world...

blahblab, I'll check back with you in 2020 when the horrific warnings have come to fruition, by then you will have experienced first-hand the purpose of fitness, resiliency, and Taleb's Antifragility in avoiding catastrophic failure which leads to great human suffering that could have been avoided if we eliminate the power vacuum of democracy. You still didn't grasp the very simple point (I mean really a 120 IQ should suffice) that with power vacuum, individuals maximize their individual wants by asking the government to give them everything they want in terms of social services and including insuring their 0% (or even negative) downpayment mortgages. Yes they maximize their short-term wants at the cost of catastrophic failure. But I don't want to explain this, because I don't want to feel compelled to refute another one of your clueless posts.

Rassah, check back with you after a few years when all my technical warnings about Bitcoin have come to fruition. There were no dumb mistakes written by me, only your inability to comprehend what is written. Don't bother dragging me into a detailed debate, it has all been argued ad nauseum already. See you 2020 my little feline idiot who stalks me and reads every one of my posts.

---

I guess you guys don't realize how silly you look displaying your dunning-kruger effect for me. Throughout my life when I didn't really try to communicate much what was inside my head, I always felt I wasn't that smart and was lacking information. But when people can't even grasp the simple concepts I write about, it makes me realize they are not simple for most people. So it causes me to realize that my low opinion of myself was not accurate.

Holy fuck! How many hours over how many days does AnonyMiint waste typing up all this stuff? And does he have a list of his own posts he thinks are important? I've never seen anyone quote themselves over and over to refute points or emphasize about how they are right about something, as much as he does. Hell, I'm sure he may be intelligent about some things, but I totally lost all respect for him when he started posting rather dumb mistakes about his ideas on how to attack bitcoin, and started attacking with ad hominems anyone who pointed out the rather blatant errors in his understanding of how bitcoin works. As for this political and economic diatribe, I used to read it, but at this point it's a waste of time, because he can't seem to figure out how to say something without taking up two pages to say it, and whenever you point out something that seems off or that you disagree with, he either attacks you as being an idiot, or replies with too many things to bother with. Seriously, it would take me a week to go through, digest, and refute his crap, but as soon as I did that, he'd come back with a moonth's worth of more bullshit, including moving goalposts, claims he didn't say what he did, etc. It's actually a fairly common tactic of creating such huge posts with so many points and issues that it becomes impossible to sit down, review, debate, and try to refute ("shotgun journalism?") Seriously, big fancy words that take up pages to not really say much of anything don't change a big-headed self-important loony idiot into a brilliant person (that only works for university professors...). Please don't fall for his brand of self-advertising bullshit.



Yeah, hopefully, but somehow I seriously fucking doubt it.

P.S. I almost never attack or deride anyone (I may point out a dumb statement sometimes, though). I don't even have anyone on my ignore list. AnonyMint is a very special exception.

One hopefully final transgression:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/07/creating-a-natural-hedge/


http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/08/the-growth-of-the-internet-the-dawn-of-a-complete-new-era/


Armstrong went to great lengths in upthread quotes to say we shouldn't believe in the power-elite boogeyman because it would make us afraid to stand up to government. Now he says we should be afraid to stand up to government overtaxing us. He forgets the dumping of Tea in US history apparently.

How can he be sure that we can't invent anonymity technology that is sufficient for many of us to feel confident enough in our anonymity weapon to stand up?

Why does standing up have to be global coordination in his proposed model of a global reserve SDR currency with floating national currencies?

Armstrong is not omniscient enough to know which form the reformation of government will take.

He should remember that and check his hubris at the door.