|
rscott posted:Except the laws of physics are immutable and the laws of economics are not, so that's a pretty fuckin stupid analogy The analogy is appropriate enough. There may be a lot of horse-poo poo surrounding economics but a lot of it is well established and has predictive power. If your solution to an economic problem says what we know is wrong, it better do a good job explaining why everything we know is wrong, and also why our incorrect theories were right so much of the time. This isn't just abstract philosophizing, the real world consequences of politicians rejecting established economic theory has resulted in mass suffering up to and including people starving to death by the millions.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
HorseLord posted:Turns out you didn't read the thread. Holy poo poo come off it. He responded to the implications of a post which he quoted in its entirety.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
Also I don't see any reason to think an AI could actually transcend ideology or act selflessly or whatever it is you think an AI could actually accomplish that a person or group of people could not. There's no reason to suppose it would be any easier or more difficult to change the "synthetic nature" than it is to change "human nature."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
AI will be essential for central economic planning of the future. Corporations are already using advanced computer systems for maximizing efficiencies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
gohmak posted:AI will be essential for central economic planning of the future. Corporations are already using advanced computer systems for maximizing efficiencies. Sure, it would be a useful tool but I don't see what is uniquely socialist about artificial intelligence, or what it does to make socialism a political possibility, or how it would be uniquely useful to socialist planning, etc. The obstacles to socialism, and the challenges that it must overcome, are ultimately political, not technological.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Also I don't see any reason to think an AI could actually transcend ideology or act selflessly or whatever it is you think an AI could actually accomplish that a person or group of people could not. Indeed, superfast sapient AI may be more vulnerable to ideology than humans, because they're better and faster at rationalizing threats and contradictions to their ideology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
There's some sci-fi novelette which has AI that is so incredibly autistic that it's incomprehensible to humans. They need "handlers" who are capable of making interpretations of what the AIs communicate, of course they are incomplete and the handler ends up painting it with his own bias. I mean, we can't communicate effectively with chimpanzees, and they're the species outside our own that is arguably closest to us. What guarantees do we have that we'll be capable of communicating with an artificial intellect, one that is entirely outside of our biological origin? I think at the very least it will be hard as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
The fact that we designed and built literally every I/O method it has? That sci-fi tale you talk about sounds like it was inspired by the days of early computing, when the work was largely done by specialized computer operators trained in the arcane I/O methods used decades ago, and misinterpreting the output of a computer isn't exactly uncommon even today. But no matter how arcane the I/O method got, it was always designed and built by a human who intended for it to be comprehensible somehow to other humans. If a computer decides on its own to stop producing coherent output in a format that can be understood by humans, it has entered a state popularly known as "broken", and will likely be taken offline for repair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The fact that we designed and built literally every I/O method it has? That sci-fi tale you talk about sounds like it was inspired by the days of early computing, when the work was largely done by specialized computer operators trained in the arcane I/O methods used decades ago, and misinterpreting the output of a computer isn't exactly uncommon even today. But no matter how arcane the I/O method got, it was always designed and built by a human who intended for it to be comprehensible somehow to other humans. If a computer decides on its own to stop producing coherent output in a format that can be understood by humans, it has entered a state popularly known as "broken", and will likely be taken offline for repair. Okay, I guess I put it wrong. On a strict I/O basis we would be able to communicate, give and receive data, yeah, but what I meant is that the electronic sentience might have a set of intrinsic values, a personality, a worldview, or whatever, that would be so alien to human comprehension that it might not be able to make us understand it, and it might not internalize ours in turn. So we might be able to tell the AI "Hey, help me optimize the traffic on this city" and the computer might respond with "Okay, here's how you need to remap the roads and the traffic control network", to name a silly example, but if we asked it "Hey computer, what do you want in life? How do you feel?" it might have an internal analogue but there might be no way to understand it for us. This is of course 100% theorycrafting because we have no loving idea of anything even close to that anyway, but hey.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:How about a market economy with the means of production still being owned by the people? Like everyone gets an equal portion of the available production ressources and then decides what it is used for. This is called "Mutualism", BTW.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Sure, it would be a useful tool but I don't see what is uniquely socialist about artificial intelligence, or what it does to make socialism a political possibility, or how it would be uniquely useful to socialist planning, etc. The obstacles to socialism, and the challenges that it must overcome, are ultimately political, not technological. I'm just a nerdy coder and don't know that much politics,but here's my view: Assuming General AI is created and is cheaper that human labor to maintain,autoamtion would put pressures on the job market and after that on welfare systems,Since those with capital would obviously choose AI over a person for a given position.As i see it,this would be the end of capitalism,either through revolt of the now unemployable or a soft but radical change in policy - basic guaranteed income and/or governments acquiring assets of the employers.I'm not saying that obviously this would lead to socialism -since for example I'm first hearing the word mutualism in this thread and don't see how it's different from socialism/communism so i don't know poo poo - , but i don't see how capitalsim can be a viable option in world with GAI and not lead to horrible inequality. Incrediblastic fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
This all kind of assumes that AI has no rights as a person and if a corporation has personage rights I see a more compelling argument that AI would have rights. Manna talks about the socialist utopia giving everyone resources as needed to live and then they also get discretionary resources to allocate as they wish, which can be greater projects of mutual benefit to others, an example they give is a space elevator. I have always thought it a more compelling idea to speculate on the rights of abilities of AI as societal ghosts which are very real, could create economic and managerial impacts and only need some sort of digital device to communicate with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:This all kind of assumes that AI has no rights as a person and if a corporation has personage rights I see a more compelling argument that AI would have rights. The Fall of Hyperion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
I think a more substantial topic is 'Socialism in a Digital World'. During the industrial revolution factories and mines ran continuously, hungry for labor from both sexes and all ages. The labor movement moderated that demand with child labor laws, minimum wages, the 40 hour week, and so on. The two world wars and the cold war help establish and maintain this state-brokered capital-labor system. Today assembly lines need far less human muscle as Marx predicted, but outside that model there is also an enormous change in how many people are needed for record keeping. Once a modern information system is established it needs far less labor to update and maintain compared to paper and other physical archives. Similarly information goods (books, videos, software) can be reproduced and distributed at almost no cost. While global oligarchy wants every human being to be wired into the internet - it does not want 'means of production' (CAD, compilers, and other software) to be freely available. The left must defend opensource software and general computing. On a related note of how much we depend on information systems - I wonder if IBM, Microsoft, Apple, and Google have become 'too big to fail' just like GM and the banks. Facebook or Twitter could tank (they won't as long as they have utility for the State Dept and the NSA) - but any one of those 4 closing and ending product support would have huge consequences.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
I think it's underestimated how much modern governments need more data people and I mean people to just enter, examine, maintain and curate data. There's a lot of work to be done and at the current rate of adoption and most municipality's citizens resistance to spending money on infrastructure and services in general, it will be 20+ years before the system will be organized enough to be able to impliment any automated processes. Of course if we changed our attitude about government to "poo poo should nominally work" instead of blaming government for its own self aware deficiency this could probably be tasked down to a fourth of the time. As it is it's hard to get software in government that isn't either an underdeveloped money sink or an over designed kludge that never quite does what an entity needs it to. I joke to my co-workers that one day government IT will be managing an army of AI but I really do mean that jokingly, we can't get them to authorize keeping the existing roads and buildings upright.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Yeah I was kind of implying that in my post - the economy is undergoing a very awkward transition where nothing can be 'rationally' valued. In both agrarian and early-industrial societies demand for muscle/brain power is only limited by raw materials (the former produces subsistance and the latter produces abundance). In the modern economy a team of engineers can produce hardware/software that deskills entire professions - contributing to today's overabundance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:This is called "Mutualism", BTW. Cool. Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Incrediblastic posted:but i don't see how capitalsim can be a viable option in world with GAI and not lead to horrible inequality. This isn't a flaw of capitalism, it's a feature. Your fundamental flaw in reasoning is assuming that capitalists, in any capacity, give a poo poo about inequality or the plight of labour. This is made evident in the industrial revolution, where tools were created to make life easier for labour, but it ultimately resulted in hundreds of people being maimed in machinery or dying of TB in lovely mills with all the proceeds going to capital.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:where tools were created to make life easier for labour I would disagree with this - early industrialization was about efficiency and productivity (that shift from subsistence to abundance I mentioned). The tools were created to get more product from each hour of labor - and then labor was expected to work around the clock. Stalin's brutality was the agrarian/industrial transition in fast forward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
The thing is, a central economy where all resources are allocated by the state requires either: A) economic growth to always exceed population growth; B) a willingness of all participants to accept a lower standard of living if A) doesn't come true (down to, say, Mumbai Slum Dweller levels); or C) population control through either direct or indirect methods. Europeans are currently balking at the idea of sharing a limited pool of state benefits with millions of economic migrants and refugees, so it's probably best to just assume that the technological miracle that will make strong AI possible will also take care of A. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of Plan C. As I said - we live in overabundance. Too many things, too many people, and none of the balance sheets really add up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I'm a big fan of Plan C. As I said - we live in overabundance. Too many things, too many people, and none of the balance sheets really add up. Hopefully the central planning AI can also tell us which people need to be forcibly sterilized or aren't worth expending medical care resources on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
A market economy requires an even greater amount of growth because it must support a class of parasites who extract money from workers who use their property, often a very large proportion of the total value of production. A capitalist economy will collapse if it does not grow, even though the needs of the planet demand that we drastically shrink our economies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Hopefully the central planning AI can also tell us which people need to be forcibly sterilized or aren't worth expending medical care resources on. I don't think it needs to be forcible. Most 18 year old guys would accept a free vas deferens valve - the tricky thing is setting up licensing for reproduction - the criteria and the number of licenses issued annually might be the work of a computer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Socialism is ultimately a movement about sustainability as opposed to making sure everyone has equally grandiose and unnecessary extravagance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:A market economy requires an even greater amount of growth because it must support a class of parasites who extract money from workers who use their property, often a very large proportion of the total value of production. A capitalist economy will collapse if it does not grow, even though the needs of the planet demand that we drastically shrink our economies. RuanGacho posted:Socialism is ultimately a movement about sustainability as opposed to making sure everyone has equally grandiose and unnecessary extravagance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's weird how people are willing to let random chance and individual decisions determine who lives in abundance and who dies, rather than a central politburo of technocrats and their pet AI, huh? I'm not convinced that's a choice that has to be made with the amount of waste currently in the system. The only thing that really needs to change in the Western diet is the focus on beef and outside of that I think we could elevate all of the existing rest of humanity to probably not equal but comparable and fair living standard. The world is vast and much of our "capital" is misallocated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's weird how people are willing to let random chance and individual decisions determine who lives in abundance and who dies, rather than a central politburo of technocrats and their pet AI, huh? A mix of chance events and individuals making selfish decisions has destroyed every human society. The stakes have never been higher in human history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I'm not convinced that's a choice that has to be made with the amount of waste currently in the system. The only thing that really needs to change in the Western diet is the focus on beef and outside of that I think we could elevate all of the existing rest of humanity to probably not equal but comparable and fair living standard. McDowell posted:I don't think it needs to be forcible. Most 18 year old guys would accept a free vas deferens valve - the tricky thing is setting up licensing for reproduction - the criteria and the number of licenses issued annually might be the work of a computer. Also, lol at the idea that Catholics and observant Muslims, just to name two, are going to go for a surgically implanted valve that limits their ability to bear children unless they're approved by the state. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Except that that decision wouldn't be made because the system would a) never indicate that it would be a good idea, and b) straight up tell you what effect it would have, quote:and C) you're describing a market economy problem again we've been over this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Also, lol at the idea that Catholics and observant Muslims, just to name two, are going to go for a surgically implanted valve that limits their ability to bear children unless they're approved by the state. I'm a radical secularist. I want to defeat Daesh in one day and remind everyone that E=mc^2 is more true than any holy book. Hey what happens when population growth exceeds economic growth in nonsocialist economies?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I'm a radical secularist. I want to defeat Daesh in one day and remind everyone that E=mc^2 is more true than any holy book. And when that just gets you blinks and "Ok?", then what do you want to do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:And when that just gets you blinks and "Ok?", then what do you want to do? Warriors, come out and playyyyyyyy
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Globalbirth rates are declining rapidly. And the rates go down the fastest where they are the highest. hth
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Okay, I guess I put it wrong. On a strict I/O basis we would be able to communicate, give and receive data, yeah, but what I meant is that the electronic sentience might have a set of intrinsic values, a personality, a worldview, or whatever, that would be so alien to human comprehension that it might not be able to make us understand it, and it might not internalize ours in turn. The AI will start with values matching those of its programmers or the values of the people who hired its programmers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 11:29
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The thing is, a central economy where all resources are allocated by the state requires either: A) economic growth to always exceed population growth; B) a willingness of all participants to accept a lower standard of living if A) doesn't come true (down to, say, Mumbai Slum Dweller levels); or C) population control through either direct or indirect methods. This is rather absurd because it's true of all economies, whether or not they are centrally planned. It's a tautology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:This is rather absurd because it's true of all economies, whether or not they are centrally planned. It's a tautology. But you see population control through war, poverty, and disease means I can chalk things up to random chance and individual choices and feel like I am separate and innocent of the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:This is rather absurd because it's true of all economies, whether or not they are centrally planned. It's a tautology. Actually it's not because people who want to suck as much money as possible out of the economy constantly are going to be much worse at managing long-term economic contraction than people trying to fairly allocate what's available.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
The hysteria about overpopulation is not only wrong, its also like 40 years out of fashion. As already mentioned, global birth rates are falling and are projected to keep falling. One of the main driving forces of declining birth rates is the very evil regressive environmentalists rail against, which is the development of the 3rd world. Draconian population control measures have not only proven to be completely ineffectual at slowing population growth, but they are also frequently used as tools of oppression and genocide against minorities and the poor. Actual effective methods of lowering population growth include educating the population (especially women), making sure contraceptives are readily available to the public, lowering infant & childhood mortality rates, and developing local economies beyond subsistence farming. Improving the environment and improving peoples lives are often complementary, not mutually exclusive. OtherworldlyInvader fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
Ddraig posted:This is made evident in the industrial revolution, where tools were created to make life easier for labour, but it ultimately resulted in hundreds of people being maimed in machinery or dying of TB in lovely mills with all the proceeds going to capital. Isn't the development of an AGI one of the basis for the third industrial revolution? I mean, technology is continuously improving the efficiency of man-hours, but once a machine manages to be scientifically more accurate than humans on diagnosis/analysis/decision-based thought processes, won't many jobs be in a similar position to manual laborers after the first field-test of the steam engine? Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think eugenics is a particularly palatable idea even when a computer does it. Should a computer deserve more trust on such a matter?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 17:04
|
|
