|
Slanderer posted:No, you're missing the fact that Eripsa gives no mechanism for encouraging people to do work that they don't want to, other than saying, "Well, it must be unnecessary waste of capitalist pigs!". That, and Eripsa has more than once crossed himself and conflated attention points with something that can be used like a currency, but then denies it when called on it. Well, either that, or you've failed to comprehend his position. edit - what would an economy look like where attention plays no role whatsoever?
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
Slanderer posted:But "importance" is not an emprical measure, it's based on opinion, which leaves the "popularity contest" objection still present. again, popular opinion is not static, and there is a *CONVERSATION* that is central to Eripsa's narrative, and sets it apart from simple direct democracy. quote:The real problem with attention is just the fact that much of the backbone of society involves tasks that people neither know nor care about. This isn't a bad thing, people tend to specialize. What role does attention play in our present economy?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:Another way to put it: That's... not a /terrible/ starting point, but it is just a starting point. You have to define 'social good', you have to design a system that 'incentivizes' (reciprocity?), and so on. But yes, if you have any interest in improving upon what we have right now (and I think we have a strong incentive to do so, since what we have right now is falling apart before our eyes), this is a terrific starting point for conversation. Eripsa's attempting to start such a conversation - and has largely been dismissed for being arrogant enough to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Even when people have the information available, many still hold stupid opinions or don't care to learn more. Most will not want to participate in most such "conversations", and if the reddit has shown us anything, many of those who do only come because they have insane beliefs that they want to spout. Well, even better than reddit is town/city meetings, which is where all the crazies come out because people are forced to listen to them. In conversation, the narrative is driven by those who speak, not those who remain silent. quote:It's impossible to conflate our economy from eripsa "economy", since he doesn't describe one. He describes some ludicrous governing system, which is not an economy. ...says the guy with demonstrably poor reading comprehension...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Your stubborn refusal to entertain an idea is not as damning a criticism as you like to imagine.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:So, unless you want to spend your entire life discussing every aspect of society, yelling at stupid people, your vote doesn't count? And this doesn't lead to conversations being dominated by those who have nothing better to do, instead of those who are the must experienced and knowledgeable on the topic? Achmed Jones posted:I think it's supposed to be a mix, such that things we implicitly care about (sewers, epi-pens, rabies vaccines) but never actually think about are given attention according to their necessity. Whatever's left over would, I guess, go towards whatever trivial poo poo we watch on TV, but the majority of attention would have to be taken care of by infrastructure. I think the idea is that even if we all stayed inside watching soap operas all day, we'd still implicitly care about electricity and building materials and infrastructure and all that and thereby incentivize others to provide them for us. But since we wouldn't be helping solve any problems, people would have less incentive to work towards the goals we care about, so we'd eventually go do something to get us attention so we don't starve in a cold, dark apartment. It would also have to be weighted such that a bunch of nerds couldn't sit on their computers all day and give each other enough attention to keep the cheetos flowing - providing infrastructure, manufacturing, etc. would have to be worth a lot more than making cute videos in most every circumstance (exceptions allowed for breakaway trans-national hits, I guess, but that'd be like hitting a small-payout lottery). Maybe there's room for a 'hidden layer', a series of nodes that process information. Not that we should all be sitting in front of our computers arguing on the internet all day, nor that the people who do should be the de facto 'Ruling Class', but that having such a striation (with a 2nd-level tier of nodes) can make the attention-based aspect of our economy (which is ALREADY THERE) function significantly more efficiently? And it's not impossible the gains in efficiency might actually make currency itself entirely redundant. Though it needn't, for the project to be worth pursuing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:That's all well and good, but that's so hilariously far from the idea of "attention The main difference is one is fairly reasonable at first look, while the other is insane Man, it's gunna blow your mind when you finally grasp that they're the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:No no no don't you see it won't be a government that controls this it will be an ALGORITHM that is DIFFERENT and COOL and from the FUTURE. Anything that is computational is an algorithm. Your consciousness is an algorithm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 03:58
|
|
. It's called charity, man.
|
Slanderer posted:Except on the other hand, they're not? Centrally planned economies are just that--centrally planned. They are the result of the gesalt psychic field of the participants (a WAAAGH, if you will), but as the result of a small subset of the population making decisions for the rest. You can't see how this is different then what eripsa is saying? Man, I can't wait. Your head's gunna pop.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:Why would you say this? Why would you think this is relevant? Because you were mocking him on account of his system being an algorithm. Of COURSE it's an algorithm.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Yes it is. A magical, undefined "algorithm". That exists in name only. What's your point? Just like your mind!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:I was mocking the idea that it's any better to appeal to a perfect algorithm than to a perfect government or a perfect philosopher-king. I can't believe you're so stupid that you didn't get that. But here we are. Again, what are your feelings on Plato?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Perhaps if we pooled our efforts to create some near-omniscient AI-god, we would be better off? Praying to twitter is significantly more effective than praying to god. Your consciousness is an algorithm. Any computer network is an algorithm. Even if it relies upon human nodes to perform some parts of the calculation. It's not that Eripsa is advocating for a 'Perfect Algorithm'; it's that he believes we are capable of constructing a better algorithm than what we presently have. Any single Dictator would be an imperfect algorithm. Any cabal of rulers would also be. The question is, how do we design the best possible algorithm for our purposes? And you fail to grasp this, and so you point and mock at a word you don't understand.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Now, it should go without saying that in order to debate an algorithm, or even to use it in an argument, it must be defined. The fact that you don't comprehend it is not necessarily a mark against it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:Plato is fine, because The Republic cannot be accurately described as nothing more than "Guys it'd be so cool if everything were perfect." I think you're forgetting the reason that the kallipolis is constructed in the first place in addition to the metaphysics, epistemology, and so on that are revealed along the way. So your understanding of Eripsa's monologue is that it boils down to "Guys it'd be so cool if everything were perfect."? I would argue that the only functional difference between Socrates (in Plato's work) and Eripsa is that Socrates had interlocutors that interpreted him charitably and engage him directly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:You don't really know what an algorithm is, do you? I sorta kinda do, but feel free to say something both false and that misses the point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Very well, and continue to make irrelevant statements without touching on what is actually being discussed! The fact that you don't comprehend the relevance is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:SHOW ME THE I don't have to show you the algorithm, to demonstrate that something is algorithmic. Your consciousness is an algorithm. It's a self-referential one (making it a 'strange loop'), which makes it confusing and difficult to grasp. It runs on a massive number of parallel processors, making it impractical to emulate (though it is theoretically possible to emulate it on a Turing machine). As far as the function goes, it has a finite but enormous number of dimensions. It's virtually impossible for us to conceive of it - for a brain to fully comprehend itself would leave a lot of compression artifacts. But yes, your consciousness is an algorithm. You can be forgiven for not understanding this; it's a very high-level concept in a very specific area of specialty. But understanding this is relevant to the discussion at hand in this thread, and to anyone that grasps it, the 'LOL eripsa would replace the benevolent dictator with an algorithm' criticism is itself laughable. It's ultimately an argument from incredulity.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Consciousness != the brain. Consciousness is a manifestation of the brain. A brain can be described as algorithmic. Consciousness, being entirely phenomenological in nature, does not meet the definition of an algorithm any more so than a caesar salad. HAHAHHAHahahhahahahahahaha Dude. You're speaking about stuff you know nothing about.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
AuMaestro posted:No, Eripsa has been saying that "digital values" are obviously and uncontroversially the best formalization of the social good, and that allocating resources based on attention is obviously and uncontroversially a good way of encouraging humans to act in a way that embodies digital values. He hasn't attempted to start a conversation about improvement - he's been insisting that his scheme absolutely does so without evidence. You don't think you might be straw manning just a teensy weensy bit here?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
Yasser Arafatwa posted:Well, Reddit's algorithm/conversation/narrative/whatever buzzword Uglycat is currently obfuscating the topic with in order to cling to his insane beliefs is currently trying to draft legislation so they can keep sharing and getting off to child porn. Truly a system we should aspire towards. I know it's beyond you, but 'algorithm', 'conversation' and 'narrative' are real words with real meanings, and I use them in a manner consistent with those meanings. Also, your link fits the narrative of the attention-based economy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
Zachack posted:At the least Robot Overlord will do enough planning that the required fire brigade size won't be determined by watching houses burning down. How do you think actuarial tables were developed?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 08:39
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:So looking this up, apparently Pennsylvania does require check or money order to pay fees in person. However, money orders can be bought from any United States Post Office, which is a government entity, using cash, so that still goes against it being evidence of "how deeply Corporate Infrastructure has been embedded in the basic fabric of social life". "There's an unnecessarily complicated means of opting out (in at least one state), therefore the suggestion that there is a push to merge your personal info in a way that is fully transparent to The Authorities is entirely without merit!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:[snip] I greatly appreciate your willingness to do research, rather than thoughtlessly throw out an anecdote as though that demonstrates Eripsa to be a moron incapable of thought. Install Gentoo posted:You seem to believe that the government will know more about me if I pay with a money order bought from somewhere, when getting an ID that already requires all sorts of documentation to get, then if I pay with cash. Why would you believe such a thing? No, what I expressed is that weakly thought out anecdotes don't refute Eripsa's claim. Not that Eripsa's claim is accurate. Eripsa has done a terrific job in this thread of addressing objections and attempting to work with his critics; his critics have not extended him the same courtesy. This is why he keeps emphasizing 'charitable interpretation.'
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 03:32
|
|
(and that's over 50% anyway).
|
Install Gentoo posted:You're confused, Eripsa was the one who made a poorly thought out anecdote, namely: I'm not confused, and you're being dismissive because you think this is a boxing match, rather than an effort at reaching the truth. Now, lurkers may well be confused. See, Eripsa posted his claim (which is NOT an anecdote), you responded with your anecdote 'I've never paid anything BUT cash!', and then Slanderer stopped chewing on his fingernails long enough to bang out this drivel: Slanderer posted:To be fair, the first (and only) time i went to the DMV in Pennsylvania, they didn't take cash or credit, only checks or money orders. If someone wanted to contest Eripsa's claim, they should have done something like Sir John Falstaff did. Instead, you're all so eager to gainsay, you didn't even think about what you were addressing. Moreover, this would leave lurkers completely confused, because Eripsa's comment, followed by yours, follow by Dipshit's leaves no resolution. The information provided in that thread is insufficient for a savvy lurker to discern the truth re: Eripsa's claim (hell, to an open-minded lurker, Dipshit's claim actually lends credibility to what Eripsa was saying, despite being contrarian!). SJF resolved that issue.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
Slanderer posted:Eripsa likes to make sweeping generalizations and state things as absolutes. FIFY Install Gentoo posted:He was wrong. You keep trying to pretend he wasn't. wut (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 20:00
|
|