|
bassguitarhero posted:RIght now inefficiencies in globalization is what gives people room to exist and subsist - if efficient robots in the most fertile parts of the planet could produce all the food we would need, what would we need with farmers? I have a pretty good feeling what people like Balaji Srinivasan would think we should do - which is why I don't think letting silicon valley libertarians design said system would be a very good idea. I do think it's inevitable, but I would push back on it as long as possible to make sure we figure out what to do with all these people when we do get to these issues. Films like Wall-E solved it by only having a few humans living in the spaceships, which is a fine solution for the 1% of us already at the top, but what about those of us who are poor and don't have the kind of skills a software-run world would find useful? This is the huge issue to me. I don't know why anyone but a 1%er would be cool with a libertarian trying to set up Galt's Gulch. You know what the final result is, (massive class cleansing and the "creative destruction" of existing society to give the few an ivory tower) so why would you do anything but try to subvert this idea?
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
iFederico posted:Agreed Let's ask a question I'm sure Eripsa will be able to answer-- How much a year is it to get a grad degree from Full Sail University? (insert other for profit diploma mill as appropriate)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Seriously, why am I being held to academic standards in a debate thread on Something Awful? Would you prefer to be held to the level of the standard singularity spouter instead?-- I can tell you to go back editing the Pokemon wiki if that would really make you feel better. Your ideas are pretty lovely for the currently minority or underprivileged even on a cursory view, and you aren't even doing the actual work of engineering a solution, but instead are building the sandcastles in the sky for what to do afterwards. All of this techno-fetishism is an attempt to paper over the horrible results your plan would have for the average person, much less a minority. Just own it and accept it when decent people tell you to get hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I honestly think that in a world run by software, all the NSA cameras and tracking systems are operated on a publicly accessible, open and transparent website, something like Wikipedia, except for security. I love your think that this isn't (with the addition of your "attention economy" garbage) just a stealth way to gently caress minorities and remove basic human privacy. It's also seems to neglect the realities of stalking and partner abuse-- I sure as hell would want to be able to keep hidden from someone who wants to be a part of my life without my consent, and is willing to commit violence on me to do so. Like everything else you've done here, this idea fails (I assume purposefully so) to account for the realities of the world your system is entering. Open source security is great until a minority is deigned "dangerous" or "sinful" and thus put under the looking glass for illegal activity. At least with a unified apparatus, we have a chance to have oversight and destroy its ability to oppress through civil rights. Your distributed model is a mess in that there's no control over your neighbors or just interested strangers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:This is precisely why I want to distinguish between laws and code. Laws are fuzzy-bordered, and deciding the border cases takes a huge bureaucratic cost. Code, on the other hand, is designed to be formally precise methods of enacting an effective decision procedure. In a world of code there are no fuzzy borders, and that means its clear exactly what and what isn't tolerated, and it is defined by a protocol. Spoken like a true person of privilege. The reason we have fuzzy borders on laws is because the world isn't a computer program. Your plan would invariably screw over the currently underprivileged, because who creates the "objective" standards? The same machine that screwing them currently, and now has a layer of faux-science to cover it up. quote:But "toleration" needn't take the form of state coercive control. It can just as easily take the form of self-organized social pressure. Imagine, seriously, if reddit had control over the surveillance apparatus of the NSA. I have far more trust in /r/crimelab overseeing the operation of the forensic analysts and calling shenanigans when someone fucks up, than the oversight of professional bureaucrats looking for a comfy job and a pension. I'm not saying /r/nsa would be perfect and would have no faults. I'm only saying it would be different, and as our techniques in hcomp improve the benefits will eventually outweigh the drawbacks. We're starting to get through the surface here to get at the idiot libertarian core. Trusting some spergs over on reddit instead of the government? That's pretty rich considering the disgusting core of the site that SRS shows to the public on a regular basis. I truly trust the MRA human debris there to come up with a decent answer from a legal standpoint  Also, you talk a big game, but how are you going to assure the basic civil right protections are going to be upheld at every step along the way? By "different", I assume you're actually saying "Will screw over the currently weak" at least in the short term until whatever hcomp improvements you're talking about get completed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've explicitly given examples (see the heroin case) of how potentially underprivileged persons are treated, and you'll see that I'm explicitly discussing a system where there are no objective standards but merely open standards for conflict resolution between interested communities. The whole point is to give the individuals who aren't privileged some voice and interfaces for dealing with the wider communities of which they are a part. The way my system protects people's rights is by protecting the procedures with which they can defend those rights in the public. I'll note here that the procedures we have in place don't protect people's rights all that well as it is; I'm defending my alternative not because I think it solves ever problem right in every case, but just because it will do a better job than the systems we currently have in place. If there are no objective standards, you can't quite say your system is actually better then, can you? Because saying something "will do a better job" sort of implies some level of at least faux-objectivity. Show me your metric and your analysis showing your method to be better. quote:I absolutely agree with you that reddit has aspects that are a disgusting wreck of human filth and depravity. I still think it would do a better job than the NSA, where that depravity has been institutionalized into an entire economic class. At least the kids of reddit aren't paid professional salaries to do their poo poo. It's hilarious to see all the NSA hate now that they're the apparatus is being turned on straight white people. Hint, it was already up in everyone's poo poo long ago. Besides, you're missing the main issue. I can get some people together into a constituency and start to work on the NSA, since it's a public entity controlled (at least indirectly) by elected officials. Nobody controls the mass of humanity that's reddit or whatever replacement it would have. If they're a mass of racists, misogynistic, homophobic slime, well I guess that means black/gay/female people just don't get the same level of service out of that community. And I don't even have a formal method of correcting the issue, since the only way to change things then is to change society, versus use a governmental institution to force equality from the top down on people. Also, expecting professional quality work out of unpaid amateurs is nuts. Even open source has piles of paid companies doing contribution. The real world isn't Galt's Gulch where people do stuff because they find it enjoyable-- real people need real paychecks to buy real things. In short, your Libertarian roots are showing again. Own up to it and discuss the actual issue or expect continued criticism from everyone but dudes jerking off to an Ayn Rand fanfic. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Dec 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:This sounds an awful lot like saying "We'd ultimately like a "Science of human action"". But there's at least a possibility (a rather large one given that we live in a deterministic world) that we don't have free will. If that's true, coming up with a set of equations for it and doing things that way would be correct. That being said, nothing this guy is saying is moving towards that-- hell, we have a million other things to solve first before that's even on the horizon as a solvable issue. All he's doing is putting a layer of techno-fetishism over top of bog standard Objectivist ranting, and then trying to hand-wave it past people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:So it is just the jrodefeld conversation just with a technological language/systematization. That is the best comparison I could imagine. At least it's better than unironic Nazi trolling or the spate of nutty religious trolls (Kyrie, Victor) we've had in the last year or so.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Would you say that there is no value in being notified when one of your friends is feeling suicidal? I'd actually say it's not your business unless that person wants it to be. Assuming a value of friend that doesn't equal their mental health professional. Also, how is this idea not just a way to get around HIPPA and start releasing medical information to people who'd use it for nefarious reasons (i.e. current and future employers) Data mining the poo poo out of people can lead to some huge privacy violations-- the US doesn't care because gently caress the 99% but Europe sure does and for good reason. Eprisa has never really acknowledged this in any of his comment AFAICT, but that's one of the prime flaws with his plan. It gives the majority (or a really interested plurality) another way to gently caress with a protected minority.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I said in the OP that privacy is a setting, not a right. Somewhere in this thread I elaborated that if one chooses not to share their information, then they won't receive any of the social benefits it might accrue in an economy of attention, and will be stuck with default values that might be a pain in the rear end. For instance, if I don't let Chrome store my address, then I'm forced to type it out every time I need to use it because the default values for the form is blank. Most of the time we'll trade privacy for convenience, and if I really care about privacy then I'm stuck with doing the extra work. I've argued that people should be allowed the option for keeping things private, but we shouldn't lament the fact that they'd rather have the convenience. Wow, so you like throwing away constitutional rights on a whim. Good show, which one is next on the chopping block-- free speech or equal protection? Seriously, you can talk about anarchist (or really in your case ancap) as if it's going to provide freedom for people, but the rest of us know what has happened every time anarchy happens-- the strongest (and often worst) person gets to climb his way to power atop a pile of corpses. Your closed parties are authority figures, and will use their authority to poo poo on the minorities that they don't like. The only thing that can prevent this is a larger and powerful authority. In almost every case, this is a liberal democratic government that steps in or is forced to step in to enforce equality under law. Your system doesn't have anything explicitly designed to so, so I either have to trust your handwaving (a bad idea since technocrats in the past have failed to fix these things) or else assume that racial, class, sexual, and gender minorities will get poo poo on. Honestly, it's like you haven't put any real thought into this part of your theory. Or, as with most singularity Utopians, you simply don't care about anybody less wealthy, white, straight, and male than you. You can refute this if you show me explicit mechanisms in your theory to both protect minority rights, and keep non-governmental organizations from gaining authority and effectively becoming governments themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 18:39
|
|