|
RealityApologist posted:My comment about the military was at the very general level comparing Napoleonic formations with modern warfare. If I'm wrong about the point I'm happy to be corrected. I'm not claiming to know anything more detailed about military strategy than this obviously true and very general claim. The claim was made only to illustrate the argument about self-organization, which comprised the bulk of that post. It would probably be helpful to your cause if you could at least point out why Captain Dunning lost Napoleon the war with his reckless charge right into Corporal Kruger's forces.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
Actually, you were trying to claim that the latter are semi-autonomous and self-organized systems, presumably in support of your poorly-articulate technowank fantasy. Being exceptionally generous, this is a stunningly ignorant claim which makes far too much of the tactical flexibility that does exist in certain circumstances and almost entirely ignores the top-down imposed regimentation so pervasive in modern military organization and life. If you were just, in a vacuum unrelated to anything, claiming that modern armies are less regimented/more flexible than Napoleonic ones, that's trivially (though not unconditionally) correct I guess but why the hell would you even bother to bring it up? Also, what Adar said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Adar posted:It would probably be helpful to your cause if you could at least point out why Captain Dunning lost Napoleon the war with his reckless charge right into Corporal Kruger's forces. I don't give a poo poo about anything in this post. You seem to think that my idea of "self-organization" is "everyone acting however they choose". You further seem to think that I think that "everyone acting however they choose" is always the best strategy. I've never said anything of the sort, and I've explicitly denied it multiple times in response to your low-effort posts in this thread, and the very premise of your accusation is completely incompatible with the very premise of the view I've been defending. But you're not actually responding to the words I'm writing, you are responding to the wild delusion of what you think my views are. You also seem to think posting your delusional responses are funny, but they just make this thread boring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't give a poo poo about anything in this post. Aaaaaand game
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't give a poo poo about anything in this post. Do you give a poo poo about anything enough to understand it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You seem to think that my idea of "self-organization" is "everyone acting however they choose". You further seem to think that I think that "everyone acting however they choose" is always the best strategy. If these are incorrect characterizations of your position, then you have really done a spectacularly stunningly bad job of describing your position. Maybe it'd help if you stopped using your own self-made self-defined terms and made sure you had the basics explained and understood by everyone before laying out your Utopian vision over every possible derail and tangent?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:If you were just, in a vacuum unrelated to anything, claiming that modern armies are less regimented/more flexible than Napoleonic ones, that's trivially (though not unconditionally) correct I guess but why the hell would you even bother to bring it up? I was using a trivially correct example to illustrate the more conceptually difficult fact about organization and it's relation to infrastructure. Usually when people are giving illustrative examples, the point is to give a simple example to make the point clear. The point was that you can have a more autonomy and self-organization even under a highly regimented system. Both Napoleon's armies and and the modern military have a flamboyantly aggressive hierarchical control structure, but even in these structures you gain effectiveness by allowing more independence and feedback from the components. That's not a universal claim, and there are constraints on both sides of the issue (too much independence is just as bad as not enough), but the example clearly makes the point. Remember, this was in response to claims that the laws governing the road implied that traffic was not a self-organized phenomenon. In addition to the military example, I also appealed to tidal algae (which I'm not an expert on either). Both examples were meant to show how organizations flourish (or fail to flourish) within the constraints of the environments in which they develop. The laws governing the road are indeed constraints on the flow of traffic, and they are effective for some things (though not others, like traffic speed), and this all has implications for how the traffic flows. Even still, the flow of traffic is a self-organized phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I was using a trivially correct example to illustrate the more conceptually difficult fact about organization and it's relation to infrastructure. Usually when people are giving illustrative examples, the point is to give a simple example to make the point clear. Given how bad you are at "giving simple examples to make points clear," perhaps you might consider a different style of argumentation. quote:The point was that you can have a more autonomy and self-organization even under a highly regimented system. Both Napoleon's armies and and the modern military have a flamboyantly aggressive hierarchical control structure, but even in these structures you gain effectiveness by allowing more independence and feedback from the components. That's not a universal claim, and there are constraints on both sides of the issue (too much independence is just as bad as not enough), but the example clearly makes the point. I don't see however how that supports your larger idea, though I admit that's in part since you're so incredibly vague and hand-wavy about what it is, exactly that you're proposing. If too much independence ruins the system, then how on earth do we strike a happy medium in your voluntarist-yet-immensely-intrustive crowdsourced "everything will sorta work itself out guys no really" system? See also how your own use of Indian traffic experience led, in reality, to considerable traffic fatalities, which you ignored earlier. And more to the point, in the military example, both modern and early 19th century, any level of self-organization is entirely subordinate to higher authority, and indeed dictated by that authority's understanding of tactical and strategic needs of the moment. It's a tool top-down authority can use as needed, or constrain when not (or when counter-productive), and is not useful at all outside of that larger rigid control structure. What relationship any of this bears to your larger argument outside of using some of the same vocabulary, I'm sorry to say I fail to grasp. quote:Remember, this was in response to claims that the laws governing the road implied that traffic was not a self-organized phenomenon. In addition to the military example, I also appealed to tidal algae (which I'm not an expert on either). You keep doing this, to my utter bewilderment. Why do you insist on using examples of which, by your own admission, you lack a solid understanding, or indeed any understanding beyond "on the surface, this seems to support my argument"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:They are all within the realm of possibility using today's technology (or at least most of them). But they really aren't. Technology isn't even close to being able to handle the volume of data we create. If you go to any research lab you'll find that many of the jobs they run take days to complete, and even then they're often working with a set of assumptions to simplify things. You simply can't make the assumption that computing power is going to continue increasing exponentially. In recent years it's noticeably slowed down, and there are actual physical limits to contend with. While there are ideas that may result in faster computing in the future (like quantum computing), you can't just assume that it'll end up working out and computers will become fast enough to tackle a particular task.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I was using a trivially correct example to illustrate the more conceptually difficult fact about organization and it's relation to infrastructure. Usually when people are giving illustrative examples, the point is to give a simple example to make the point clear. As usual you waste pages defending individual examples when you could just concede the point and pick a better one. I barely remember what point you were trying to make. This is just like that human wave example in the marbles thread, where you wasted pages defending a bad example instead of just conceding the point and picking out a better one, even as people were suggesting better examples to you. Your "never cede any ground, ever" style of debate does you no favors. Back on topic (hopefully) why do you seem to consider "self-organization" as some sort of holy grail? The current capitalist system is very much self-organized: people spending their money on stuff, companies and markets react to this signal and allocate resources appropriately to respond to the demand. Contrast this with a planned economy where a central authority decides where the resources go. And yet you are clearly no fan of how things are done now, so clearly "self-organization" isn't the magic that suddenly makes things work correctly. Yet that's how you repeatedly invoke it: "Well you see we give people these tools and data and then they just self-organize and somehow everything works out!" Honestly it seems like "self-organization" is just a way for you to deflect criticism regarding how poorly thought out your system is: you don't need to explain how poo poo is going to work because ~~~self-organization~~~ is going to come in and make it all sort itself out. This leaves you free to ignore the pesky details and focus on the big ideas, but the result is pretty unconvincing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:But they really aren't. Technology isn't even close to being able to handle the volume of data we create. If you go to any research lab you'll find that many of the jobs they run take days to complete, and even then they're often working with a set of assumptions to simplify things. Let's just say, for the sake of the following argument, that we take seriously the option of using a system like the one I've proposed (made sane) to manage everything, instead of governments and markets. That would (theoretically) free up all the computing power running the existing global economy, coupled with all the computing power that exists within surveillance institutions like the NSA. That seems like the right order of magnitude to do a project like this, with existing levels of technology, and a coarse enough level to make it functional. Whatever tricks we might learn in the future to improve our models or computing power would presumably make the system that much better, of course, but I think we're in a position where we can take the idea seriously as within the realm of possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
A moon colony in 1 year is also within the realms of possibility. You better start your astronaut training!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Honestly it seems like "self-organization" is just a way for you to deflect criticism regarding how poorly thought out your system is: you don't need to explain how poo poo is going to work because ~~~self-organization~~~ is going to come in and make it all sort itself out. This leaves you free to ignore the pesky details and focus on the big ideas, but the result is pretty unconvincing. Self-organization is a dynamical property of a system. Self-organized systems behave in ways that are adaptively resilient to changing environmental conditions. I'm using the term in order to explain the formal structure of the system I'm proposing: that of a functionally coordinated, semi-autonomous organization. There's lots of room within this structure to describe systems that are both good and bad. I've never said that a self-organized system is a perfect system. All I've said was that it is an alternative to a hierarchically coordinated, top-down system. This is complicated, because even such a system might itself have self-organized features. you'd be hard pressed to find a single natural phenomenon that doesn't. Nevertheless, these is a sensible distinction to make between hierarchical structures of representation and authority, and naturally organized structures of functional differentiation and mutual coordination. Again, self-organized systems can do bad things too. But as a class of systems, they have certain properties (resilience under change) that are different from the more traditional control structures. So I'm highlighting that difference to demonstrate the this structure of the proposal. My essay in the OP also said specific things about how the system should be organized, and what the functional parts are. But this discussion is contingent on understanding the more basic discussion concerning organization, which I've been elaborating for the last few pages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Guys, I have a self organizing system. It'll be great, and more important then that, it's within the realms of possibility. Okay, here it goes: You do what I say. That's it! You'll get some leeway to how you might do something. But think of me as the, uh, kernel of this grand amorphous and flexible new economy, and you're like the applications that do things. Here, have some pictures:   
rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Well, I finally caught up with this thread, though I'm not sure how much I've gotten out of it. Anyway, I have to agree with the criticism of you not being particularly clear exactly where you stand. Your vociferous defense of pretty much anything people object to makes it seem like you're completely pro-everything you post, even if you write that this is not necessarily the case. Anyway, to clear this up for us, would you answer these questions and my statements about your position as I understand it? Please limit yourself to yes/no answers, or perhaps single sentence ones, with as few specialist terms as possible.
2. You're proposing a bottom-up feedback system that lets the "self-organizing" system change the character of the "top down" constraints. 3. You do not believe that increasing the power of the "self-organizing" system is always superior.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Yes to all three. My last post should clear that up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Self-organization is a dynamical property of a system. Self-organized systems behave in ways that are adaptively resilient to changing environmental conditions. I'm using the term in order to explain the formal structure of the system I'm proposing: that of a functionally coordinated, semi-autonomous organization. And yet there was a time when there were no governments and all people lived in self-organized non-hierarchical societies. Now most people live under hierarchical governments. So clearly self-organized systems aren't always more resilient (the only property you mentioned) than hierarchical ones, in fact the evidence seems to indicate that the opposite is true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:And yet there was a time when there were no governments and all people lived in self-organized non-hierarchical societies. Now most people live under hierarchical governments. So clearly self-organized systems aren't always more resilient (the only property you mentioned) than hierarchical ones, in fact the evidence seems to indicate that the opposite is true. It's OK because hierarchical societies are self-organized as well, because everything is true at once. "There's room in the model for good and bad." Precursors to the model include "it's all good" and "everything is everything."
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Let's just say, for the sake of the following argument, that we take seriously the option of using a system like the one I've proposed (made sane) to manage everything, instead of governments and markets. Powerful computing clusters aren't really used in many/most industries. You seem to be assuming that there's this massive amount of computing power that is going into just making the economy function, and that isn't really the case in any fields other than finance/economics/marketing. And it would be dumb to redirect all of the computing power that is used in science/technology towards the sort of tasks you've mentioned in this thread. The reason people are acting so incredulous in this thread is that you're making some pretty massive assumptions that most people with a good head on their shoulders would require a hell of a lot of evidence to accept. If our existing computing power is struggling to keep up with the data produced in fields like biology/physics, we certainly can't free up enough spare computing power to handle several orders of magnitude more data than that. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Let's just say, for the sake of the following argument, that we take seriously the option of using a system like the one I've proposed (made sane) to manage everything, instead of governments and markets. Please give an estimate for the computing power you're supposing would be freed up (with some basis for that). Then, give an actual estimate for the computing power needed for "what you've just proposed" requires and show your work. Algorithms and problems have explicit computational needs that can be calculated: do so instead of just saying "well these two indeterminate amounts seem similar to me, according to nothing whatsoever".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
As someone who knows nothing, it seems that it should be trivial to repurpose all NSA computers to solve the problem of, given the coordinates of every person on earth, finding the single shortest route that hits each person once and returns to the orgin. I mean it's just common sense you could do that given the NSA's computers, and if not given the NSA's computers plus Wall Street's computers. Why would I even bother figuring out how much computational power I would actually need?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Yes to all three. My last post should clear that up.
2. Similarly, list examples where you believe increased bottom-up feedback would be useful. Preferably in the format of: More control: Traffic: Computer-controlled cars will operate more consistently within the rules of the road, allowing for smoother and safer traffic. More feedback: Government: Constant feedback from the population would allow government services to respond quicker to changes in public opinion, allowing for faster but more gradual change. This will increase the public's interest in government, and reduce the power of lobbyists, creating a government more representative of the people's wishes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:And yet there was a time when there were no governments and all people lived in self-organized non-hierarchical societies. Now most people live under hierarchical governments. So clearly self-organized systems aren't always more resilient (the only property you mentioned) than hierarchical ones, in fact the evidence seems to indicate that the opposite is true. That's right. In particular, the methods of organizing that worked really well for small groups (like speaking loudly and having deep family ties) didn't work so well when the populations grew to the thousands or millions. Low population allowed those organizations to develop, and when that constraint changed, so too did our organizations. And as has already been mentioned in this thread, the modern nation state is very resilient under pressure. I'm not saying there aren't advantages for hierarchical control. However, I do think that our global population has now outstripped the organizing capacity of now even that hierarchical structure. When we're a global population, widely distributed and occupying diverse cultural and political beliefs, the top-down control structure starts to become ineffective, and you start needing more systems that incorporate better feedback to adequately manage the whole system. Which, of course, is exactly what we've seen. As soon as the technologies became available, people have been flooding online in droves; there are over a billion people on facebook, and nearly 7 billion cell phones on the planet. It allows people new organizational resources which they desperately need.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
You know, all of this makes sense if you substitute "bloody human carnage" for "dynamic." Like, traffic accidents in India are certainly dynamic. Of all the things you could call them, dynamic is definitely one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:That's right. In particular, the methods of organizing that worked really well for small groups (like speaking loudly and having deep family ties) didn't work so well when the populations grew to the thousands or millions. Low population allowed those organizations to develop, and when that constraint changed, so too did our organizations. Why, specifically? Like so much else, you've not provided a discrete reason(s) why this is a reasonable thing to believe. quote:When we're a global population, widely distributed and occupying diverse cultural and political beliefs, the top-down control structure starts to become ineffective, and you start needing more systems that incorporate better feedback to adequately manage the whole system. What is it about those, or any other technology for that matter, that is so goddamn revolutionary as to require/facilitate such an across-board shift in global organization? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
As I've been saying, "self-organizing" is an empty term since any system with humans in it is going to be self-organizing by your definition. Name me a single human grouping or institution that's not self-organizing in the general way you use the term. You're not going to see it short of somehow circumventing human autonomy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:As I've been saying, "self-organizing" is an empty term since any system with humans in it is going to be self-organizing by your definition. Name me a single human grouping or institution that's not self-organizing in the general way you use the term. You're not going to see it short of somehow circumventing human autonomy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:That's right. In particular, the methods of organizing that worked really well for small groups (like speaking loudly and having deep family ties) didn't work so well when the populations grew to the thousands or millions. Low population allowed those organizations to develop, and when that constraint changed, so too did our organizations. So we've moved on from resilience? Now the argument is necessity? In addition to Captain_Maclaine's questions above I'd like to ask why you think why self-organized groups have greater organizing capacity for very large groups? Like all the evidence I've seen indicates otherwise: self organization only works up to a certain sized group, after that you need hierarchical structure. "A billion people on facebook" doesn't indicate much, those people are sharing photos and stupid jokes with their friends, not making and executing decisions about much of anything. At best it helps people plan parties (note however that facebook events have owners who control the page). A better example might have been wikipedia, but as we all know that website requires a hierarchy of moderators in order to keep things under control as well. Can you point to an actual example of a self-organized non-hierarchical group the size of a modern nation state?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, that's why I focused on the word feedback, since that seems much closer to what he's actually talking about. And more specifically, treating the whole thing as a continuum, not distinct states. More feedback, not top down vs. self-organized. But even then though it's hard to say where exactly the revolutionary component comes in. If anything, getting useful feedback to inform changes in management has gotten much harder with modern data collection technologies due to problems coping with the volume of data as well as with accelerated feedback/decision cycles that are too short to obtain meaningful information vs. noise. One example of this is the criticism that has been raised of the business world's obsession with quarterly numbers, something which emerged once the technology to report and compile them quickly became available, and which has been criticized as making it harder for management to focus on the big picture in favor of increasingly short-term gains, sometimes leading to what is essentially flailing as high-level policies keep getting changed in response to what later turns out to be meaningless noise. Versus the traditional yearly numbers which some say actually provided better quality of feedback and encouraged better decisionmaking with less of an obsession with short-term results. Yeah better data processing and better feedback collection would be good. But would it be revolutionary? Questionable. And how would the kind of weird and radical schemes being floated here help this? Unknown. It's all just handwaved away as "we'll use machine learning to correlate all this great data and AIs will figure it all out for us." OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:As I've been saying, "self-organizing" is an empty term since any system with humans in it is going to be self-organizing by your definition. Name me a single human grouping or institution that's not self-organizing in the general way you use the term. You're not going to see it short of somehow circumventing human autonomy. Yeah as I stated earlier it's just a way for him to plug the holes in his system. No need to explain the details, "self organization" will take care of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:As I've been saying, "self-organizing" is an empty term since any system with humans in it is going to be self-organizing by your definition. Name me a single human grouping or institution that's not self-organizing in the general way you use the term. You're not going to see it short of somehow circumventing human autonomy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Except calling a system self-organizing means absolutely jack poo poo. As I said before, it's so broad and vague as to be essentially meaningless in any practical terms. Basically all the stuff Eripsa thinks he can revolutionize is already a self-organizing system. Except why will internet cloud web 3.0 something something make it better? While I don't believe that it's meaningful to call a system self-organizing, specific elements of the system's behavior can be said to exhibit self-organization. If you use the term self-organizing to describe any system which has some form of self-organizing behavior, then it's going to always be meaninglessly broad. It's a useful way to describe things exhibiting homeostasis, hysteresis, feedback loops and the like with surprisingly wide applicability but it's no theory of everything with magical implications like how Eripsa treats it. Main Paineframe posted:If traffic engineering only influenced how traffic operates, then traffic lights wouldn't exist because they're only really useful as strictly-followed rules, not vague suggestions. And congestion is usually caused by failures of the top-down rules, such as a self-organized political lobby messing with the traffic engineers' plans or drivers self-organizing themselves into a nineteen-car pileup blocking enough lanes to completely ruin the road's capacity calculations. The United States ITYOOL 2013 is not a compelling example of congestion usually being a result of the failure of top-down rules. In spite of all the top-down efforts taken across the country, there's still highly periodic bouts of congestion in nearly every major city. Rush hour and certain holiday weekends happen without any central direction telling people what roads to drive on. The same patterns occur in spite of policy differences between cities, and sustained changes within a city still eventually stabilize in a new pattern while transient disruptions tend to revert to the norm. It's self organized in the sense that there's no centralized top-down system telling everyone which roads they must drive on for a particular trip and it's more robust than the centralized system crashing and not letting anyone drive anywhere. Having said that, I'm not agreeing with Eripsa. It's robustly lovely and sprinkling magical computer dust on everything will only solve the problem insofar as the swarms of omniscient mind-reading murderbots reduce the number of people driving in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Let's just say, for the sake of the following argument, that we take seriously the option of using a system like the one I've proposed (made sane) to manage everything, instead of governments and markets. It's a bit hard to believe you when you say you've done research since the last thread because you keep spitting out gems like this that show you either have never studied computer science, or you have paid so little attention in class you got nothing out of it. Why stop at running your attention economy, why not say the computers powering the world's economy and the NSA can just create the Matrix? Why not create the machine from Person of Interest and stop world crime? The latter would require far less processing power and would still be pretty impossible but would also not require sticking RFIDs and GPS chips in our asses while still providing a useful service.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:So far, Tokamak is the only one who appears to have actually looked at any of the other material. He also seems to have comprehended it and sees how it fits into the academic discussion of consensus procedures, and he admits that it isn't radically out of step with the literature. But instead of talking about better alternatives, or even just sharing his knowledge with the thread, he saw fit to jump on the insult bandwagon and call me a crank. I'm not a crank; I'm a nonspecialist talking to an audience of presumably nonspecialists, and that's an important difference. This is a situation where experts should be assisting in the learning process, not heaping on the insults. You've mentioned that you have studied computer science, so I would suggest to read Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach if you want to get an understanding why I don't take your views seriously. Its an undergraduate book on AI and should be comprehensible for someone with a CS degree. It discusses everything that I've mentioned and explains why it would be infeasible to scale your algorithm. I'm definitely not an expert, but the subject matter does touch upon a lot of the things you learn in a computer science degree. You can use a computer to solve what a group of people should eat at a restaurant, which makes everyone happy. There are perhaps 20 people, and 50 menu items and each person has a few preferences and one restriction. Say we wanted to extend that example so we could decide as a city which food outlets service the city. With a million people and the entire breadth of cuisine, it would take a very long time to find even a sub-optimal solution. Now you'll say that your idea is to split up this big problem into groups like the previously small and solvable one. But you also introduce extra work determining how each small group relates to each other. Perhaps within a group of people who like Hot Curry, there is a faction who hates Fruit in Curry and would be in the Mild Curry group if they had to compromise on Hot Curry with Fruit. Maybe that group is small enough to ignore, but then you find a No Coriander group. This group of people is as big as the Coriander group and each have factions within them that would make different compromises on Hot/Mild and Fruit/No Fruit. It's even more concerning when you can't even quantify social/political/economic issues as easily as categories of cuisine. It would make it impossible to work in small groups because each member of that group has too diverse of a set of values. It would take an equally large amount of computation to split a population up into appropriate groups as it would to solve the bigger problem. So, no even all the big computer clusters used by governments would get bogged down trying solve problems in the manner you described. It turns out, our broken, 'inefficient' system of governments and people haphazardly starting businesses and going bust is orders of magnitude more efficient than anything we can do computationally. Tokamak fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Has anyone been able to figure out if there's even a basic need for "a world run by software"? I mean there's plenty of poo poo that's hosed and all, but why exactly world "a world run by software" be the solution?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Has anyone been able to figure out if there's even a basic need for "a world run by software"? I mean there's plenty of poo poo that's hosed and all, but why exactly world "a world run by software" be the solution? I don't think he's convincingly shown there to be one, no. It's why I called his argument a solution in search of a problem, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Honestly it's generous to even describe it as a "solution".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I said that the modern military uses more self-organized tactics and give soldiers a greater degree of autonomy than a Napoleonic army. You are strawmanning my position. I just want to point out as a professional military historian that the term "self-organized tactics" is at best meaningless gibberish nobody in the field uses or would even understand, and we can create obscurantist gibberish acronyms, euphemisms, and terminology with the best of the social sciences. At worst it's complete self-contradicting bullshit, since tactics don't self-organize in any comprehensible use of the term. Now, if you're trying to say that modern militaries give more responsibility and latitude for interpreting and carrying out orders and tactical movements to junior officers and small unit leaders than was the case in previous eras, then you're right, but I don't see what this has to do with your marble economy. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Has anyone been able to figure out if there's even a basic need for "a world run by software"? I mean there's plenty of poo poo that's hosed and all, but why exactly world "a world run by software" be the solution? that would just ruin the fun do you ask if there is a basic need to stop the football mans from putting the ball in the painted section of the grass?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
It'd be a pretty awesome project to work on not gonna lie. Kind of in the same way Bitcoin is a cool project: it would be sweet as hell to get to work on the project, and turn this wacky theory into a working proof of concept just to say "son of a bitch, this poo poo actually works!". The problem is when someone runs with it and says the world economy should work off of it that all the logistical problems of running the world's attention data through a central network poke through and show you all the ways this (for the forseeable future) cannot and should not be used wide scale.
burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 05:57
|
|