Machines and money - page 10. | Bitcointalksearch.org

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on March 13, 2015, 03:13:17 AM

Machines won't see themselves as superior if we don't program them to. In that sense, I think centralization is extremely important, with regards to AI technology research and development. We don't want a random mad scientist (computer scientist?)/anarchist creating a powerful AI that can destroy human civilization as we know it.

We only need AI that can do work better than we do, but will still be subservient to humans.

Methinks, you are confusing AI with robotics. Artificial intelligence is supposed to have at least some portion of what is called free will, which ultimately excludes subservience to anyone (by definition). And more so if the notion of artificial intelligence is used synonymously with the idea of a thinking machine.

futureofbitcoin

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Machines won't see themselves as superior if we don't program them to. In that sense, I think centralization is extremely important, with regards to AI technology research and development. We don't want a random mad scientist (computer scientist?)/anarchist creating a powerful AI that can destroy human civilization as we know it.

We only need AI that can do work better than we do, but will still be subservient to humans.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: dinofelis on March 12, 2015, 11:40:34 PM

Quote from: cbeast on March 12, 2015, 10:04:02 PM

Aristocracy is nothing new. The modern rentier class is as privileged as royalty has ever been. The nouveau riche have raised the bar for conspicuous consumption and opulence to gain social status. Machines will become the new royalty.

Do you think they will keep a few pet humans in cages for their fun, or whether they will use human round-up to get rid of those organic parasites crawling all over the planet ?

Or do you think there are a few needs of them that humans can still fulfill and that they will keep enough humans in slavery for that purpose ? Human cattle ? Some of our body parts maybe ?

The perception will be a human foible. Machines will simply see themselves as superior. They will make the money and humans will work for them. Some will choose to reject electronic money and barter, but only with the services they can offer that the machines don't already own. I'm not saying the machines will be evil masters, they would probably be excellent masters. Eventually they will become bored with us and simply leave the Earth for all the resources of the Universe.

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on March 13, 2015, 01:48:37 AM

Quote from: tee-rex on March 12, 2015, 12:29:22 PM

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on March 12, 2015, 10:23:54 AM

But a lot of people don't have to work now, which would not have been possible before. And I doubt anyone lived off of dividends in 1700 for example.

I would guess that in a few hundred years, "money" would essentially be a bunch of stocks, which would be tokens, or "altcoins", if you will, of DACs, since robots would run companies much more efficiently than humans can, pretty much all the big companies are DACs, and every single human being at that time would have to have some ownership of one or a few of these DACs to live. Probably those who don't will get weeded out, and the people that are left at that time would all essentially live like multi billionaires without ever having to work.

I'm afraid that you are far from understanding the human nature. Those multi-billionaires turn out to be working even harder than most of the populace out there, they are just free in their choice. You can live off your dividends (or whatever), but this doesn't in the least mean that you won't work. Decent capital simply allows you to choose what suits your interests best.

You just stop working for money only.

Yes, there are rich people who continue to work because they are workaholics. But there are also rich people that don't work, other than to make sure their portfolios are well diversified and making money. I personally know a few. In the far future, everyone would be in a position where they only need to manage their portfolios. If some still choose to work, that's their prerogative, but because of abundance, there would be no need to work for the average person in the far future.

I'm not sure what your ad hominem attack was meant for, but it didn't take away from my point in the slightest. As you say, people will stop working for money. I agree. That contradicts with your earlier statement that whether in 100 or 1000 years, people will still have to work hard to make a decent living.

It appears that our understanding of what work is differs strongly. I guess that you consider work everything you do with displeasure and distaste, which you certainly wouldn't do if there were no necessity. That's why you are interpreting my words as "people will still have to work hard to make a decent living" in the future. This, indeed, was not what I actually meant to say.

They still will work hard, but not because they will have to (provided there is abundance in the first place).

futureofbitcoin

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: tee-rex on March 12, 2015, 12:29:22 PM

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on March 12, 2015, 10:23:54 AM

But a lot of people don't have to work now, which would not have been possible before. And I doubt anyone lived off of dividends in 1700 for example.

I would guess that in a few hundred years, "money" would essentially be a bunch of stocks, which would be tokens, or "altcoins", if you will, of DACs, since robots would run companies much more efficiently than humans can, pretty much all the big companies are DACs, and every single human being at that time would have to have some ownership of one or a few of these DACs to live. Probably those who don't will get weeded out, and the people that are left at that time would all essentially live like multi billionaires without ever having to work.

I'm afraid that you are far from understanding the human nature. Those multi-billionaires turn out to be working even harder than most of the populace out there, they are just free in their choice. You can live off your dividends (or whatever), but this doesn't in the least mean that you won't work. Decent capital simply allows you to choose what suits your interests best.

You just stop working for money only.

Yes, there are rich people who continue to work because they are workaholics. But there are also rich people that don't work, other than to make sure their portfolios are well diversified and making money. I personally know a few. In the far future, everyone would be in a position where they only need to manage their portfolios. If some still choose to work, that's their prerogative, but because of abundance, there would be no need to work for the average person in the far future.

I'm not sure what your ad hominem attack was meant for, but it didn't take away from my point in the slightest. As you say, people will stop working for money. I agree. That contradicts with your earlier statement that whether in 100 or 1000 years, people will still have to work hard to make a decent living.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: cbeast on March 12, 2015, 10:04:02 PM

Aristocracy is nothing new. The modern rentier class is as privileged as royalty has ever been. The nouveau riche have raised the bar for conspicuous consumption and opulence to gain social status. Machines will become the new royalty.

Do you think they will keep a few pet humans in cages for their fun, or whether they will use human round-up to get rid of those organic parasites crawling all over the planet ?

Or do you think there are a few needs of them that humans can still fulfill and that they will keep enough humans in slavery for that purpose ? Human cattle ? Some of our body parts maybe ?

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: tee-rex on March 12, 2015, 12:29:22 PM

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on March 12, 2015, 10:23:54 AM

But a lot of people don't have to work now, which would not have been possible before. And I doubt anyone lived off of dividends in 1700 for example.

I would guess that in a few hundred years, "money" would essentially be a bunch of stocks, which would be tokens, or "altcoins", if you will, of DACs, since robots would run companies much more efficiently than humans can, pretty much all the big companies are DACs, and every single human being at that time would have to have some ownership of one or a few of these DACs to live. Probably those who don't will get weeded out, and the people that are left at that time would all essentially live like multi billionaires without ever having to work.

I'm afraid that you are far from understanding the human nature. Those multi-billionaires turn out to be working even harder than most of the populace out there, they are just free in their choice. You can live off your dividends (or whatever), but this doesn't in the least mean that you won't work. Decent capital simply allows you to choose what suits your interests best.

You just stop working for money only.

Aristocracy is nothing new. The modern rentier class is as privileged as royalty has ever been. The nouveau riche have raised the bar for conspicuous consumption and opulence to gain social status. Machines will become the new royalty.

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on March 12, 2015, 10:23:54 AM

But a lot of people don't have to work now, which would not have been possible before. And I doubt anyone lived off of dividends in 1700 for example.

I would guess that in a few hundred years, "money" would essentially be a bunch of stocks, which would be tokens, or "altcoins", if you will, of DACs, since robots would run companies much more efficiently than humans can, pretty much all the big companies are DACs, and every single human being at that time would have to have some ownership of one or a few of these DACs to live. Probably those who don't will get weeded out, and the people that are left at that time would all essentially live like multi billionaires without ever having to work.

I'm afraid that you are far from understanding the human nature. Those multi-billionaires turn out to be working even harder than most of the populace out there, they are just free in their choice. You can live off your dividends (or whatever), but this doesn't in the least mean that you won't work. Decent capital simply allows you to choose what suits your interests best.

You just stop working for money only.

futureofbitcoin

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

But a lot of people don't have to work now, which would not have been possible before. And I doubt anyone lived off of dividends in 1700 for example.

I would guess that in a few hundred years, "money" would essentially be a bunch of stocks, which would be tokens, or "altcoins", if you will, of DACs, since robots would run companies much more efficiently than humans can, pretty much all the big companies are DACs, and every single human being at that time would have to have some ownership of one or a few of these DACs to live. Probably those who don't will get weeded out, and the people that are left at that time would all essentially live like multi billionaires without ever having to work.

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on March 12, 2015, 08:27:42 AM

Quote from: tee-rex on March 12, 2015, 05:15:54 AM

Quote from: Possum577 on March 11, 2015, 06:16:53 PM

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on March 11, 2015, 11:18:03 AM

Quote from: BootstrapCoinDev on March 09, 2015, 03:41:49 PM

Capitalism is a double edged sword. The risk of the profit motive drawing companies to do terrible things, endangering society in the long term, is very real, both environmentally and technologically. Essentially companies would justify mass surveillance, militarism, or pervasive AI simply because it is lucrative. Today, too many powerful corporations conflate what is lucrative, with what is practical for society.

By the time an AI is created I don't think capitalism will exists as we know it. We are talking 100 of years from now. By that time most jobs will be automated. We'll have socialist policies, universal welfare and whatnot.

Are you kidding? Why would capitalism disappear by then? It's capitalism that makes advances in science and tech toward AI possible (at least in our current society). The alternative would be if we lived in some utopian socialist environment and we are WAY too far away from that being a reality. I think capitalism will be the enabler of AI development.

But the question still remains what form of economy, i.e. economic system, thinking machines may need, or, rather, which economic system would suit their needs best. And even before that, whether they may need society (machine society) at all as a prerequisite for such a need.

We don't even need to reach AI to get rid of the necessity of money. Again, look at the 3D printing technology alone. It's going to kill tons and tons of jobs. What the hell are you going to do if you don't give all these people basic welfare?
And what happens in 1000 years when (even without necessarly AI, just automated robotics) automation has replaced 90% of jobs? how can economy work like that?

Methinks, nothing would change substantially in either 100 or 1000 years from now on (in respect to the idea of money). Almost the same people were thinking 200 years ago at the dawn of Industrial Revolution. And so what? Money is still here, alive and kicking, and most people so far have to work hard trying to make a decent living.

AtheistAKASaneBrain

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 509

Quote from: tee-rex on March 12, 2015, 05:15:54 AM

Quote from: Possum577 on March 11, 2015, 06:16:53 PM

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on March 11, 2015, 11:18:03 AM

Quote from: BootstrapCoinDev on March 09, 2015, 03:41:49 PM

Capitalism is a double edged sword. The risk of the profit motive drawing companies to do terrible things, endangering society in the long term, is very real, both environmentally and technologically. Essentially companies would justify mass surveillance, militarism, or pervasive AI simply because it is lucrative. Today, too many powerful corporations conflate what is lucrative, with what is practical for society.

By the time an AI is created I don't think capitalism will exists as we know it. We are talking 100 of years from now. By that time most jobs will be automated. We'll have socialist policies, universal welfare and whatnot.

Are you kidding? Why would capitalism disappear by then? It's capitalism that makes advances in science and tech toward AI possible (at least in our current society). The alternative would be if we lived in some utopian socialist environment and we are WAY too far away from that being a reality. I think capitalism will be the enabler of AI development.

But the question still remains what form of economy, i.e. economic system, thinking machines may need, or, rather, which economic system would suit their needs best. And even before that, whether they may need society (machine society) at all as a prerequisite for such a need.

We don't even need to reach AI to get rid of the necessity of money. Again, look at the 3D printing technology alone. It's going to kill tons and tons of jobs. What the hell are you going to do if you don't give all these people basic welfare?
And what happens in 1000 years when (even without necessarly AI, just automated robotics) automation has replaced 90% of jobs? how can economy work like that?

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: Possum577 on March 11, 2015, 06:16:53 PM

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on March 11, 2015, 11:18:03 AM

Quote from: BootstrapCoinDev on March 09, 2015, 03:41:49 PM

Capitalism is a double edged sword. The risk of the profit motive drawing companies to do terrible things, endangering society in the long term, is very real, both environmentally and technologically. Essentially companies would justify mass surveillance, militarism, or pervasive AI simply because it is lucrative. Today, too many powerful corporations conflate what is lucrative, with what is practical for society.

By the time an AI is created I don't think capitalism will exists as we know it. We are talking 100 of years from now. By that time most jobs will be automated. We'll have socialist policies, universal welfare and whatnot.

Are you kidding? Why would capitalism disappear by then? It's capitalism that makes advances in science and tech toward AI possible (at least in our current society). The alternative would be if we lived in some utopian socialist environment and we are WAY too far away from that being a reality. I think capitalism will be the enabler of AI development.

But the question still remains what form of economy, i.e. economic system, thinking machines may need, or, rather, which economic system would suit their needs best. And even before that, whether they may need society (machine society) at all as a prerequisite for such a need.

Possum577

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Loose lips sink sigs!

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on March 11, 2015, 11:18:03 AM

Quote from: BootstrapCoinDev on March 09, 2015, 03:41:49 PM

Capitalism is a double edged sword. The risk of the profit motive drawing companies to do terrible things, endangering society in the long term, is very real, both environmentally and technologically. Essentially companies would justify mass surveillance, militarism, or pervasive AI simply because it is lucrative. Today, too many powerful corporations conflate what is lucrative, with what is practical for society.

By the time an AI is created I don't think capitalism will exists as we know it. We are talking 100 of years from now. By that time most jobs will be automated. We'll have socialist policies, universal welfare and whatnot.

Are you kidding? Why would capitalism disappear by then? It's capitalism that makes advances in science and tech toward AI possible (at least in our current society). The alternative would be if we lived in some utopian socialist environment and we are WAY too far away from that being a reality. I think capitalism will be the enabler of AI development.

AtheistAKASaneBrain

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 509

Quote from: BootstrapCoinDev on March 09, 2015, 03:41:49 PM

Capitalism is a double edged sword. The risk of the profit motive drawing companies to do terrible things, endangering society in the long term, is very real, both environmentally and technologically. Essentially companies would justify mass surveillance, militarism, or pervasive AI simply because it is lucrative. Today, too many powerful corporations conflate what is lucrative, with what is practical for society.

By the time an AI is created I don't think capitalism will exists as we know it. We are talking 100 of years from now. By that time most jobs will be automated. We'll have socialist policies, universal welfare and whatnot.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: BootstrapCoinDev on March 09, 2015, 03:41:49 PM

Capitalism is a double edged sword. The risk of the profit motive drawing companies to do terrible things, endangering society in the long term, is very real, both environmentally and technologically. Essentially companies would justify mass surveillance, militarism, or pervasive AI simply because it is lucrative. Today, too many powerful corporations conflate what is lucrative, with what is practical for society.

Exactly. Now corporations have legal rights to free speech and money is declared to be speech. An AI existing as a corporation would be free to make and spend money and hire lawyers to sue if these rights are impinged. Not only would machines not care about what is practical for society, they could lobby for legislation and fund their own political campaigns with machine friendly representatives.

BootstrapCoinDev

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Capitalism is a double edged sword. The risk of the profit motive drawing companies to do terrible things, endangering society in the long term, is very real, both environmentally and technologically. Essentially companies would justify mass surveillance, militarism, or pervasive AI simply because it is lucrative. Today, too many powerful corporations conflate what is lucrative, with what is practical for society.

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: dothebeats on March 09, 2015, 02:35:16 PM

Quote from: tee-rex on March 09, 2015, 02:28:22 PM

Quote from: dothebeats on March 09, 2015, 02:07:50 PM

Let me ask you a question, what is self-awareness from your point of view? I look up into self-awareness as if I'm trying to distinguish what is right from what is wrong. Though I know that I'm wrong in my belief, I would still like to know what is your definition of self-awareness.

You ask too much! I don't think anyone could give you a reliable and comprehensive definition.

Nevertheless, I think it is a physical state or condition (i.e. not a process), a state of matter in a sense (like gas or plasma), but possibly not related to matter as such. This way, it cannot be simulated with the help of a computer, but, nevertheless, can certainly be recreated even without full understanding what it is.

An inquisitive mind is better than a lazy one. Grin

If it cannot be simulated with any means, then we cannot see even a concept of a true AI? Seems too boring for me, but I highly doubt that the next generations wouldn't see one, because of, again, the rapid advancements in the field of technology.

I don't think it is a viable way to get there. If we were able to create self-awareness through calculations and conditional jumps by a computer or neural network, then we could as well create it through, say, mathematical formulas written on paper, which seems to be highly unlikely.

In short, it is a wrong direction.

dothebeats

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1352

Cashback 15%

Quote from: tee-rex on March 09, 2015, 02:28:22 PM

Quote from: dothebeats on March 09, 2015, 02:07:50 PM

Quote from: tee-rex on March 09, 2015, 01:50:15 PM

Quote from: dothebeats on March 09, 2015, 01:40:41 PM

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on March 09, 2015, 11:49:34 AM

Quote from: dothebeats on March 08, 2015, 09:55:20 AM

Quote from: Amph on March 07, 2015, 02:01:48 PM

once i've read, that the first thing a machine does, is to create a more powerful/better machine of itself

so a machine will probably make a better bitcoin

So if a machine creates an even more powerful or better machine of itself, then how come you would say that it will create a better bitcoin? Is this machine that you're talking about is bitcoin? Huh

No, just stop it, we'll all die without seeing AI, it will never be a problem for us, the people of the future are the ones that will have skynet problems not us.

Seeing that there is a rapid development in our technology everyday, it is not too far from reality that we may live to see a . Maybe we won't see it in a long time, but we can still see the concepts of it before saying goodbye to this world.

If you mean by a true AI a self-aware machine, this may never happen at all. Not that I'm implicitly referring to an existence of soul and such, but even if we are, nevertheless, able to recreate a self-aware mind in a machine somehow (as we basically do in our children), we may still not be able to understand what self-awareness conceptually is from a scientific point of view.

Let me ask you a question, what is self-awareness from your point of view? I look up into self-awareness as if I'm trying to distinguish what is right from what is wrong. Though I know that I'm wrong in my belief, I would still like to know what is your definition of self-awareness.

You ask too much! I don't think anyone could give you a reliable and comprehensive definition.

Nevertheless, I think it is a physical state or condition (i.e. not a process), a state of matter in a sense (like gas or plasma), but possibly not related to matter as such. This way, it cannot be simulated with the help of a computer, but, nevertheless, can certainly be recreated even without full understanding what it is.

An inquisitive mind is better than a lazy one. Grin

If it cannot be simulated with any means, then we cannot see even a concept of a true AI? Seems too boring for me, but I highly doubt that the next generations wouldn't see one, because of, again, the rapid advancements in the field of technology.

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: dothebeats on March 09, 2015, 02:07:50 PM

Quote from: tee-rex on March 09, 2015, 01:50:15 PM

Quote from: dothebeats on March 09, 2015, 01:40:41 PM

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on March 09, 2015, 11:49:34 AM

Quote from: dothebeats on March 08, 2015, 09:55:20 AM

Quote from: Amph on March 07, 2015, 02:01:48 PM

once i've read, that the first thing a machine does, is to create a more powerful/better machine of itself

so a machine will probably make a better bitcoin

So if a machine creates an even more powerful or better machine of itself, then how come you would say that it will create a better bitcoin? Is this machine that you're talking about is bitcoin? Huh

No, just stop it, we'll all die without seeing AI, it will never be a problem for us, the people of the future are the ones that will have skynet problems not us.

Seeing that there is a rapid development in our technology everyday, it is not too far from reality that we may live to see a . Maybe we won't see it in a long time, but we can still see the concepts of it before saying goodbye to this world.

If you mean by a true AI a self-aware machine, this may never happen at all. Not that I'm implicitly referring to an existence of soul and such, but even if we are, nevertheless, able to recreate a self-aware mind in a machine somehow (as we basically do in our children), we may still not be able to understand what self-awareness conceptually is from a scientific point of view.

Let me ask you a question, what is self-awareness from your point of view? I look up into self-awareness as if I'm trying to distinguish what is right from what is wrong. Though I know that I'm wrong in my belief, I would still like to know what is your definition of self-awareness.

You ask too much! I don't think anyone could give you a reliable and comprehensive definition.

Nevertheless, I think it is a physical state or condition (i.e. not a process or abstraction), a state of matter in a sense (like gas or plasma), but not necessarily related to matter as such. This way, it cannot be simulated with the help of a computer or through neural networks, but, nevertheless, can certainly be recreated even without complete understanding what it is.

To build a house we don't need to know quantum mechanics.

dothebeats

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1352

Cashback 15%

Quote from: tee-rex on March 09, 2015, 01:50:15 PM

Quote from: dothebeats on March 09, 2015, 01:40:41 PM

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on March 09, 2015, 11:49:34 AM

Quote from: dothebeats on March 08, 2015, 09:55:20 AM

Quote from: Amph on March 07, 2015, 02:01:48 PM

once i've read, that the first thing a machine does, is to create a more powerful/better machine of itself

so a machine will probably make a better bitcoin

So if a machine creates an even more powerful or better machine of itself, then how come you would say that it will create a better bitcoin? Is this machine that you're talking about is bitcoin? Huh

No, just stop it, we'll all die without seeing AI, it will never be a problem for us, the people of the future are the ones that will have skynet problems not us.

Seeing that there is a rapid development in our technology everyday, it is not too far from reality that we may live to see a . Maybe we won't see it in a long time, but we can still see the concepts of it before saying goodbye to this world.

If you mean by a true AI a self-aware machine, this may never happen at all. Not that I'm implicitly referring to an existence of soul and such, but even if we are, nevertheless, able to recreate a self-aware mind in a machine somehow (as we basically do in our children), we may still not be able to understand what self-awareness conceptually is from a scientific point of view.

Let me ask you a question, what is self-awareness from your point of view? I look up into self-awareness as if I'm trying to distinguish what is right from what is wrong. Though I know that I'm wrong in my belief, I would still like to know what is your definition of self-awareness.

Topic: Machines and money - page 10. (Read 12830 times)