|
RealityApologist posted:I suspect that's because its be harder to be as aggressively hostile when talking to a a real person than it is to poo poo all over some text on the forums. It's because watching philosophy dudes talk on a webcam is the most boring thing imaginable. Sorry that you're also unemployable in the Attention Economy.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Sep 9, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I still can't use clauses? Then this will require two sentences. Fitting this in one sentence would make it less clear. Thank you. Only write things after you've simplified them to this extent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
SealHammer posted:Did Eripsa ever answer why anyone should care about a hypothetical system that doesn't solve any problems or make anything easier to do? Of course not. He won't answer questions about the real world utility of Strangecoins either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Aristotle is awesome. Re-read his Rhetoric. While not 100% applicable, it will help you present your ideas more clearly to an audience like one. Also, Digital Philosophy sounds interesting and if you can point us to some kind of primer or introduction to it that would be cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I suspect that's because its be harder to be as aggressively hostile when talking to a a real person than it is to poo poo all over some text on the forums. Okay, so set up a proper one-on-one voice chat with someone. Let's hear you get the poo poo beaten out of you vocally about how your idea is neither novel nor feasible. It'll be worth it just to hear your total inability to deal with criticism in-stream.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Of course not. He won't answer questions about the real world utility of Strangecoins either. If I understand correctly, StrangeCoin is a sort of agent-based modelling thing (he mentioned NetLogo after all) which is not actually intended for real life adoption. His hypothesis seems to be that the incentives built into his system will, in some cases, produce better outcomes than the real economy does. So after running a StrangeCoin model of a bunch of different situations to select where the model is useful, RA hopes to make explicit previously unnoticied deficiencies existing in the real world. By making these explicit, we are better able to fix things. That's what I think he's trying to do at least, but I might be totally wrong. Debunk fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
^^^ 100% correctRepublican Vampire posted:Okay, so set up a proper one-on-one voice chat with someone. Let's hear you get the poo poo beaten out of you vocally about how your idea is neither novel nor feasible. It'll be worth it just to hear your total inability to deal with criticism in-stream. A hangout is video chat (though feel free to turn your camera off Obdicut if that makes you uncomfortable) and can host up to ten participants simultaneously. I'll post the link when we go on air, and anyone who wants to can speak up. And I'll put the whole thing on YouTube afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Debunk posted:If I understand correctly, StrangeCoin is a sort of agent-based modelling thing (he mentioned NetLogo after all) which is not actually intended for real life adoption. That's what he's now saying. What he originally said was: quote:In this post I sketch a proposal for a digital currency He's shifted around as the deep and obvious problems bubbled to the surface. Actually, you've skipped a bit, because these days he's not even claiming that it will improve anything, just that it will make obvious the problems that exist in the system. Also, in how he's described it, the system can be gamed instantly, so the model would only work if you excluded people gaming it. He also hasn't operationalized a drat thing, like 'better' for example. In fact, in his dumb-rear end attention economy stuff, he circularly reasons that anything popular deserves resources, like furry porn if people want furry porn. RealityApologist posted:
It won't make me uncomfortable at all. I'm not the one who lied and dodged questions, that was you, remember?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Debunk posted:So after running a StrangeCoin model...  I would be amazed if this ever got to a point where a working model existed for transactions between three people. Look, we haven't even been given a sensible working example of some of these transactions between two people - every time this is attempted, RA introduces a brand new obfuscating parameter or feature that was never specified in the OP. Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:In fact, in his dumb-rear end attention economy stuff, he circularly reasons that anything popular deserves resources, like furry porn if people want furry porn. And also, conversely, that any activity which is unpopular to watch or pay attention to like street sweeping, manufacturing a refrigerator or mining tungsten ore does not deserve any compensation. That was my favorite part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That's what he's now saying. What he originally said was: Actually, the OP does describe it as a "model of the value that our complex economic relationships generate." He also talks about the possibility of implementing it, but it seems like implicitlly he means implementing it on a small scale, as more of an experiment, rather than the scale of a political-economic revolution. I agree that his argument about making things explicit will improve things wasn't convincing. I'm just trying to suss out what he's getting at, or failing that point out the potential value buried in this word-heap. If he restricts his idea to merely being a model, does it matter if it's game-able? This isn't a rhetorical question, I actually don't know very much about modelling/philosophy of science.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
eXXon posted:
Yeah I think ultimately he's either going to have to throw this stuff into NetLogo, or resign to describing it as a thought experiment. If it's merely a thought experiment, then like the rest of the thread I don't think it's of any value.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Debunk posted:If I understand correctly, StrangeCoin is a sort of agent-based modelling thing (he mentioned NetLogo after all) which is not actually intended for real life adoption. His hypothesis seems to be that the incentives built into his system will, in some cases, produce better outcomes than the real economy does. So after running a StrangeCoin model of a bunch of different situations to select where the model is useful, RA hopes to make explicit previously unnoticied deficiencies existing in the real world. By making these explicit, we are better able to fix things. That's what I think he's trying to do at least, but I might be totally wrong. But if the model doesn't actually simulate real world events and conditions accurately, it's no loving good to anyone. Also what Obdicut said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:And also, conversely, that any activity which is unpopular to watch or pay attention to like street sweeping, manufacturing a refrigerator or mining tungsten ore does not deserve any compensation. That was my favorite part. The attention economy wasn't actually about compensating anyone, as far as I can remember. The assumption was that peoples' needs would be taken care of in an anarchist manner (basically post-scarcity), and the attention tracking part was just about explicitly calling out problem areas and giving "important" people a bigger podium. It still required people to organize outside of the attention system, and if people didn't like the output of the attention algorithm they could basically just ignore it. So really, its basically like Strangecoin: Eripsa seems to think that the reason that social and economic problems are not "solved" is because they are not properly understood and called out explicitly as problems, rather than the fact that the solutions themselves are difficult. His thesis is that trying to model the system as a network will make it so that we can figure out the solution, because now we *really* understand the problem. Let me know if I got that wrong, Eripsa.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:And also, conversely, that any activity which is unpopular to watch or pay attention to like street sweeping, manufacturing a refrigerator or mining tungsten ore does not deserve any compensation. That was my favorite part. I've not been defending the attention economy stuff in this thread, but this is a misunderstanding. My idea is that the street cleaners and ore miners and so on are so fundamental to the process of human organization that they would be so deeply entrenched in an economy of attention that they would come out the winners. I mean, I watch Shia Labeouf for maybe 2 hours in a film every other year, but I take a poo poo every day and the plumbling that runs through my house occupies a significant role in my daily activities. In an attention economy, the wealth and influence of the actor and the plumber would be entirely inverted. In an attention economy, my influence on the network is a function of how great a role I play in that network. The "celebrities" of today really play an almost entirely insignificant role in the network, but they get a big chunk of the wealth because the economy is biased towards the beautiful presentation more than organizational stability. In an attention economy, the inverse would be true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Re: your Star Trek article, what is "European Socialist Capitalism"? Is Strangecoin, in fact, intended for a post-capitalist society, or does it assume the existence of capitalism? Also, guys, Jon Lawhead says all you PhDs are too dumb for him to bother with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Debunk posted:Actually, the OP does describe it as a "model of the value that our complex economic relationships generate." He also describes it as a currency. These things are not the same thing, which is a good indication that he doesn't really have a firm grasp on his topic. It also doesn't make sense to say 'model of the value that our complex economic relationships generate' without operationalizing 'value', which he has never done. It is also not a 'model' of our economic relationships, it is a proposal of an entirely new and different set of economic relationships that bears very little resemblance to our current ones. So that description of it is, in fact, highly inaccurate. quote:If he restricts his idea to merely being a model, does it matter if it's game-able? This isn't a rhetorical question, I actually don't know very much about modelling/philosophy of science. Yes. Leaving aside the way that this is not, actually, a model, if you can show that in your system/model/whatever a few people acting in concert can game it to oblivion, then your system/model is crappy. I'm not even sure it'd take three, I think in some iterations of his explanation it only takes two. He's never actually given a coherent explanation of how anything actually works, like how 'endorsements' actually matter except for items of extreme scarcity. I asked him about five times to explain how 'endorsements' would change the experiences of people buying toothpaste at strange-mart, and he just dodged the question. So it's not actually a model, he hasn't actually described this non-model in a way that anyone could run an experiment, and what he has described has obviously gameable flaws. Actually, I just remembered, according to him, you'd never need loans because you'd never be short of cash, so you'd actually be able to game the system with a single person, doesn't even take two. RealityApologist posted:I've not been defending the attention economy stuff in this thread, but this is a misunderstanding. My idea is that the street cleaners and ore miners and so on are so fundamental to the process of human organization that they would be so deeply entrenched in an economy of attention that they would come out the winners. You don't pay any attention to the guy who inspects your meat, yet he exists. Come on, this is loving trivial to think about. Spend five seconds of actual thought. Also, lots of people spend far, far more time than 2 hours per year on Shia LaBeouf, or rather, on celebrity culture as a whole. There are a shitton of problems that exist precisely because nobody pays attention to them, or would exist except that we have laboriously constructed a system that doesn't depend on anything as frivolous as what people pay attention to so that we can pay and otherwise compensate people to pay attention to the things people otherwise wouldn't pay attention to. Your attention economy might be worse than strangecoin, because it is coherent enough to model and the actual effects of it would be horrific. Your attention economy also depended on people RFID chipping things that were important to them, if you remember that. That was one of the high humor points. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
I am silly in the way I hallucinate other posts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
ryde posted:So really, its basically like Strangecoin: Eripsa seems to think that the reason that social and economic problems are not "solved" is because they are not properly understood and called out explicitly as problems, rather than the fact that the solutions themselves are difficult. His thesis is that trying to model the system as a network will make it so that we can figure out the solution, because now we *really* understand the problem. I suppose this is why the "making it explicit" argument failed to be convincing. I'm not saying we don't understand the problem, I'm saying that the tools we have available for addressing these difficult problems aren't sufficient for resolving them. Imagine I have a 2'x4' that is 6' long. I want you to cut it in half and give me a 3 foot long piece, but the only tool you have is a piece of sandpaper. Well, technically sandpaper can be used to shape wood, but using it for this project makes it an unmanageable nightmare, so daunting as to be impossible. This apparently difficult problem becomes trivially easy if I give you a saw. The difficulty of a problem cannot be understood independent of the tools we have for solving the problem. This isthe point of talking about a nudge. I didn't elaborate earlier because the book is fairly well known and I'm already too pedantic, but it's important for my argument that the nudges matter for how we behave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book) quote:A simple example of a nudge would be placing healthy foods in a school cafeteria at eye level, while putting less healthy junk food in harder to reach places. Individuals are not prevented from eating whatever they want, but the arranging of the food choices in that way has the effect of decreasing consumption of junk food and increasing consumption of healthier foods. Even if all the information about the health of food is available to the students, placing them in particular orders has consequences for their eating habits. Arranging the structure of the environment by itself has psychological consequences on their actions. Changing the environment changes how we act in it. So I'm saying that if you introduce feedback on the structure of the network into the transaction, it can nudge behavior in ways that it wouldn't go otherwise. And yes that can be a bad thing, but it can also be a really really good thing, especially if that's a behavior we want to generate and can't find ways of doing it with the arrangement of tools we have at our disposal. So, look. Democratic goverments are lovely as gently caress. They are easily corrupted, and for any number of reasons can fail to properly represent the political will of their constituents. Of course it's really hard to find the right political consensus across a diverse population, no one says it's easy. But it's also loving stupid to think that its possible to avoid corruption in circumstances where unlimited political donations are legally sanctioned. You're never going to find the proper consensus that way. I think it's just as silly to expect a stable economic system, or any improvements to inequality and the distribution of wealth, if we only have tools like the fed and taxes to manage the economic system. Money is memory, but as memory money does a really lovely job at remembering the important things about how our economic functions, and so our economy has become basically a 24/7 looting zone of what used to be public goods and prospects, like a restaurant that went in debt to the mob and is being burned out while its credit still flies. None of the tools we have on the table right now are adequate for dealing with this situation. The tools we have are what created this situation. We desperately need new tools.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:None of the tools we have on the table right now are adequate for dealing with this situation. The tools we have are what created this situation. We desperately need new tools. Did you order those Krugman textbooks from Amazon.com? Who do you think you are, talking about what tools we do and don't have?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
We need better tools. Not everything new is better. Your ideas, for example, are much, much worse. Also a reminder that you admitted you don't actually know much about economics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
You responded to my question about loans and capital markets by saying loans wouldn't be needed because no one would ever be short on cash. I don't understand how this works, can you elaborate beyond just saying no one is short of cash? What if I wanted to build a factory, how would this work in a strange coin system?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You don't pay any attention to the guy who inspects your meat, yet he exists. Come on, this is loving trivial to think about. Spend five seconds of actual thought. Also, lots of people spend far, far more time than 2 hours per year on Shia LaBeouf, or rather, on celebrity culture as a whole. My brain doesn't pay attention to the guy who inspects my meat. He never enters my conscious thoughts. But my economic activity of buying and consuming meat has his actions all over it, and they are a huge and important influence on my behavior of eating meat. The attention economy is a way of measuring that economy of influence. Celebrities have a virtually negligible influence on anyone's life in virtue of the work they do, but because we don't have a functional attention economy they play the role of social hubs and end up with much more wealth and influence than is warranted by their role in the network. The work of the meat inspector or whatever touches far more lives in far more important ways, and in an attention economy their wealth and influence would reflect that network position. It has nothing to do with who I think about, and it's a complete strawman to say it was. If I were a child, I might call you a liar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:My brain doesn't pay attention to the guy who inspects my meat. He never enters my conscious thoughts. But my economic activity of buying and consuming meat has his actions all over it, and they are a huge and important influence on my behavior of eating meat. And here is where you handwave in the magical interpretation layer where somehow you buying and consuming meat 'has his actions all over it'. People ate meat before meat inspectors, idiot. They ate tons of meat. quote:The attention economy is a way of measuring that economy of influence. Celebrities have a virtually negligible influence on anyone's life in virtue of the work they do, but because we don't have a functional attention economy they play the role of social hubs and end up with much more wealth and influence than is warranted by their role in the network. The work of the meat inspector or whatever touches far more lives in far more important ways, and in an attention economy their wealth and influence would reflect that network position. You didn't propose the attention economy as a way of measuring stuff, you proposed it as a way of allocating resources. Remember? And again, this is you just hand-waving in a magic way for the attention economy to somehow know that the meat inspector's job is really important. "Attention" is actually completely unimportant in your attention economy they way you've had to redefine it. It doesn't matter a single loving bit. quote:It has nothing to do with who I think about, and it's a complete strawman to say it was. If I were a child, I might call you a liar. I haven't lied about anything. I haven't, for example, claimed that you said that social networks have no influence on our political systems, when you didn't actually say that. That was you--you said that about me, which was a lie. Don't worry, I'm not going to bring up you being a liar tomorrow night, or freakouts about how we're all persecuting you, or anything like that. I'll purely be talking about your craptastic ideas and how insanely bad they are. I may bring up stuff like claiming your attention economy 'measures' stuff when you very, very clearly advocated it as a way of distributing resources.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
mike- posted:You responded to my question about loans and capital markets by saying loans wouldn't be needed because no one would ever be short on cash. I don't understand how this works, can you elaborate beyond just saying no one is short of cash? What if I wanted to build a factory, how would this work in a strange coin system? Strangecoin is a multi-agent system that I'm using to model certain features of social organization. I'm presenting it in terms of digital currency because it gives a trendy and intuitive way to think about the nature of this organizational framework. Although originally presented in economic terms, this thread has made me reconsider this presentation, and instead frame it in the terms of agent-based modeling which I'm much more comfortable with. This framework wouldn't be practical for building factories. Fwiw, this is a recognition of an error in my proposal and a correction of that mistake, which came about because of the criticisms that have been presented in this thread. For correcting my mistake and refining my position, I've been accused of both weaseling out of my position and refusing to acknowledge criticisms or admit mistakes. Also, when asked to describe my view under significant restrictions to my vocabulary and style, I was then accused of saying things that were not technically accurate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:A hangout is video chat (though feel free to turn your camera off Obdicut if that makes you uncomfortable) and can host up to ten participants simultaneously. I'll post the link when we go on air, and anyone who wants to can speak up. And I'll put the whole thing on YouTube afterwards. No, I mean one-on-one. AFAIK a hangout is communal. It leaves room for you to do your usual obfuscating schtick. I think you should have a recorded one-on-one conversation with someone know knows what they're talking about so you can't deflect and diffuse. e: I'm not saying I'd do it, since this isn't my area, but I think that there are a lot of people who could shred you in such a context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:People ate meat before meat inspectors, idiot. They ate tons of meat. wtf are you talking about. I'm talking about in attentioneconomyland where cameras monitor every action everyone does all the time at infinite resolution. The meat inspector's activity is embedded directly in the meat's metadata and credits him automatically anytime anyone sniffs the meat to see if it's fresh. As the meat starts to rot on the shelf, each sniff gives less and less marbles to the inspector, until eventually (if it keeps sitting there) those sniffs start drawing marbles from the inspector, signaling the ire and alarm of the sniffers. This change in the direction of flow would triggers an alarm, so that something is done about the rotten meat. The inspector's signature is right in the meatadata, so he's the one most concerned with making sure that doesn't happen. None of this requires anyone knowing who he is or anything like that, and doesn't apply to our dead great grandparents, and I'm not the idiot for thinking it should. quote:You didn't propose the attention economy as a way of measuring stuff, you proposed it as a way of allocating resources. Remember? And again, this is you just hand-waving in a magic way for the attention economy to somehow know that the meat inspector's job is really important. "Attention" is actually completely unimportant in your attention economy they way you've had to redefine it. It doesn't matter a single loving bit. It is a way of allocating resources. It uses attention to manage that process, in just the way I describe above. This isn't an incoherence in the system. You think it has to do with cognitive attention as a conscious phenomena, this is just a matter of you misunderstanding how it works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy#History
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Strangecoin is a multi-agent system that I'm using to model certain features of social organization. And it's loving useless for that purpose. How do you consistently fail to understand this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:None of the tools we have on the table right now are adequate for dealing with this situation. The tools we have are what created this situation. We desperately need new tools. Going out of the way to make a worse tool isn't going to teach us how to make a good one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Strangecoin is a multi-agent system that I'm using to model certain features of social organization. I'm presenting it in terms of digital currency because it gives a trendy and intuitive way to think about the nature of this organizational framework. Although originally presented in economic terms, this thread has made me reconsider this presentation, and instead frame it in the terms of agent-based modeling which I'm much more comfortable with. This framework wouldn't be practical for building factories. What features of social organizations have you modeled with StrangeCoin? The answer is none, because you haven't used it to do anything yet. I'm not sure how it qualifies as a model since it doesn't seem to describe any real interactions I can think of. For that matter, what have you actually changed about your proposal? It used to be a broken economic system and/or currency, and now you're deciding to call it a model. It's like building an airplane that can't fly and calling it a train without ever putting it on tracks or turning it on, since you love useless analogies. By the way, the right way to do this would be to come up with a set of real transactions between two or more people, and show that they can be better modeled by StrangeCoin transactions, or at least that something about the StrangeCoin version makes a previously obfuscated aspect of the interaction more... salient, dare I say? This would be highly reifying. Note that this has to be an actual plausible scenario and not just handwaving about how your model could tangiblize the enshrouded machinations of nepotism because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Republican Vampire posted:No, I mean one-on-one. AFAIK a hangout is communal. It leaves room for you to do your usual obfuscating schtick. I think you should have a recorded one-on-one conversation with someone know knows what they're talking about so you can't deflect and diffuse. You know, presented at conferences on the topic of using online streaming environments as educational environments, but I'm always thinking about the presenter as a teacher and the audience as the student. But your post made me think that I'm probably thinking about it in the least interesting way. What would be more interesting is if the presentation was both the teacher and the student, and the audience was just there to be entertained at watching the student struggle through difficult material. So like, instead of putting another "Introduction to Economics" lecture on Youtube with some hipster host trying to teach the material to the viewer, you have a "Shakira learns economics" youtube channel with the celebrity in the hotseat being lectured to and engaging in discussions with professors trying to teach them the material, and the goal is to teach something to the celebrity, and the entertainment is watching them struggle with and eventually master the material. The audience would probably pick up some things along the way, probably comparable to the success rate of MOOCs, but without all the guilt and facade of the traditional academic classroom. No one else would find this entertaining but me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Jesus, who holds a conference in Scranton. That's just hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The coupling relations are the nonlinear part of the transaction, because they depend on income. The account balance caps are also nonlinearities in the system, as would be any decay transaction near the caps as was proposed by someone else in the thread. As far as I know, I won the argument between Slanderer and me about whether or not this is a nonlinear system, and the description is appropriate. Ahaha jesus christ, I gotta step back into the thread for this. There was no reason for me to respond about linearity after pointing out that a set of transactions is a discrete casual system made no impression on you. All of that would have been clear from the get-go if you had spent the required 20 minutes writing out the equations for a series of transactions in a small network. That is the one simple, loving basic excercise that would have demonstrated that: (a) coupling is horribly broken (b) any dumb relation or property described as happening "over time" has to be discretized in order to be relevant in a goddamn digital system (c) the discretization of the transaction equations forces an order of operations in transactions and child transactions, which forces certain state variables to only be updated after a given transaction, ie no one gains income from a transaction until the transaction is processed, so that income cannot be reflected in any of the variables in the transaction equation as it doesnt exist yet (d) and all these words mean it's trivially linear. seriously, it takes only a few minutes to show this on paper. Slanderer fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
To me that sounds unpleasant. Watching lectures is markedly less entertaining when you have to watch someone who doesn't have the material down pat. Also, if you've ever been in a class with someone who has to ask questions every other slide it gets old, real fast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Jesus, who holds a conference in Scranton. That's just hosed up. Someone who wants to hold a conference that can break even with a $30 registration fee ($15 for students). Now, here's a model of a StrangeCoin transaction between RA and himself: RealityApologist posted:wtf are you talking about. RealityApologist posted:I'm talking about in attentioneconomyland where cameras monitor every action everyone does all the time at infinite resolution. The meat inspector's activity is embedded directly in the meat's metadata and credits him automatically anytime anyone sniffs the meat to see if it's fresh. RealityApologist posted:wtf are you talking about. RealityApologist posted:I'm talking about in attentioneconomyland where cameras monitor every action everyone does all the time at infinite resolution. RealityApologist posted:wtf are you talking about. RealityApologist posted:The meat inspector's activity is embedded directly in the meat's metadata and credits him automatically anytime anyone sniffs the meat to see if it's fresh. As the meat starts to rot on the shelf, each sniff gives less and less marbles to the inspector, until eventually (if it keeps sitting there) those sniffs start drawing marbles from the inspector, signaling the ire and alarm of the sniffers. This change in the direction of flow would triggers an alarm, so that something is done about the rotten meat. The inspector's signature is right in the meatadata, so he's the one most concerned with making sure that doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:No one else would find this entertaining but me. You mean like...Socratic dialogue? Also Eripsa I can see your attention (no pun intended) slipping. We're lurching rapidly back into marble-land, and now you've added Philosophy Apprentice to the mix.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:wtf are you talking about. I'm talking about in attentioneconomyland where cameras monitor every action everyone does all the time at infinite resolution. The meat inspector's activity is embedded directly in the meat's metadata and credits him automatically anytime anyone sniffs the meat to see if it's fresh. Okay, if I'm understanding this correctly, initially sniffs to the meat generate positive ... let's say credit to the meat inspector as long as the meat is fresh. As the meat rots, sniffs to the meat generate negative credit to the meat inspector, hopefully eventually prompting the meat inspector to do something about the meat. 1) Is knowing that sniffs while the meat is fresh should generate positive credit while sniffs while the meat is rotten should generate negative credit something that is initially coded into the system? Is this something the system learns? How is it decided? Because this has the feel of something that could blow up very, very quickly, the more and more domains it had to cover. 2) If the system can tell if the meat is fresh or rotten, why is there a meat inspector?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
moebius2778 posted:Okay, if I'm understanding this correctly, initially sniffs to the meat generate positive ... let's say credit to the meat inspector as long as the meat is fresh. As the meat rots, sniffs to the meat generate negative credit to the meat inspector, hopefully eventually prompting the meat inspector to do something about the meat. Because it's a hypothetical and you can never criticize hypotheticals, duh. Eripsa, have you ever had a non-academia related job in your entire life?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
I pay attention to A Thing, therefore it is Important. A Thing is Important, therefore I must pay attention to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Sep 9, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
Slanderer posted:I pay attention to A Thing, therefore it is Important. The weighted distribution for my attention is determined by...
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:34
|
|
