|
Just because you quantified it doesn't mean that your attention economy makes any more sense then it did before. What incentives exist in your implementation. What do you assume is the basic goal people are pushing toward?
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 10, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:This idea, if implemented, would be as radical as full communism, and that was an ideology wars were fought over and for which millions died. You better have some pretty drat good evidence to back you up. The fact that all you can offer is handwaving and paragraphs of word salad is pathetic compared to what you are calling on your readers to do. I proposed an altcurrency that applies bonuses to transactions on the basis of network structure, and for this I'm responsible for justifying the atrocities of communism. This is the kind of rhetoric I'm charged with responding to in this thread from self-described "genuine interlocutors". I've made mistakes in this thread, many of which I've admitted to and tried to compensate for. But the inflated rhetoric and confusion surrounding this discussion is as much a product of the other participants in this thread as it is is a product of me. I am not the only one generating confusion and hype in this thread. It would be helpful if there were any recognition of this fact by any of the participants in this thread. The idea of Strangecoin was novel enough to motivate a successful Hacker News thread, and the history of discussion on this forum was sufficient context to drive 60 pages of discussion. This settles the "why should anyone give a poo poo" matter sufficiently to justify the thread. Continuing to ask the "why should I give a poo poo" isn't a helpful analysis, it's just cynical trolling, as I said on the first page, cannot be taken seriously. As for the substantive question of "what is Strangecoin supposed to do?", I think that's fairly clearly addressed in the original proposal. Strangecoin is a currency where trades are modified to reflect aspects of the network structure and not merely the goods being traded. What does the economy look like if currencies operate in this way? How does that change the incentive structure of the agents in that economic system? Are there any benefits of such a framework relative to traditional currencies? These are all questions I don't know the answer to. The proposal describes a model that can be built to test these kinds of questions. I think the scope of the question is relatively modest and straightforward and interesting. And I don't think it requires me to answer for the atrocities of communism before anyone is expected to care.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Eripsa, can you point to a single project you've completed in the 11 years since you completed your Bachelors? It's hard to give a poo poo about someone's ideas when they never seen to have finished anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The proposal describes a model that can be built to test these kinds of questions. So build it already! Several people have provided building blocks for you to start with. I mean seriously, give me an hour and I could propose 20 models that could be built to answer all sorts of interesting questions. Probably none of them would pan out. Since in this case the connection between the subject matter and the model itself is completely opaque, the only way to justify your model is to show that it does something interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I proposed an altcurrency that applies bonuses to transactions on the basis of network structure, and for this I'm responsible for justifying the atrocities of communism. This is the kind of rhetoric I'm charged with responding to in this thread from self-described "genuine interlocutors". I am just shocked to see you've completely misunderstood his point, which was your proposed economic system (what we can understand of it, at least) would, if implemented, signal a systemic change as radical as the implementation of communist states in the 20th century. To justify such momentous (and potentially violent) disruption, your system needs to at least appear at least as appealing as those offered up by the Lenins and Maos of the world. So far, it is not. No one's asking you to "answer for the atrocities of communism" at all, just that you answer for the stupendous amount of change your own system would enact up pretty much every aspect of socioeconomic life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The idea of Strangecoin was novel enough to motivate a successful Hacker News thread, and the history of discussion on this forum was sufficient context to drive 60 pages of discussion. This settles the "why should anyone give a poo poo" matter sufficiently to justify the thread. Continuing to ask the "why should I give a poo poo" isn't a helpful analysis, it's just cynical trolling, as I said on the first page, cannot be taken seriously. I'd be curious for exact criteria of a "successful HN thread" given the luminaries that post over there. And using 60 pages of "why should we give a poo poo" and evasions of answers as if the volume alone somehow obviates the question is amazing. Pages and pages of half-baked amateur pheromone discussion sure does make me give a poo poo about something unrelated! Better programmers than me have stepped in, so I probably won't develop anything else. I spent the last week visiting remote water pumps in the third world and can't even begin to square that experience with this faffing about nonsense. I did want to share this: http://worldofsu.com/philipsu/2008/07/effective-communication-for-engineers/ . It helped me long ago when I was falling into the "precise wording is effective communication  " trap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:So build it already! Several people have provided building blocks for you to start with. I mean seriously, give me an hour and I could propose 20 models that could be built to answer all sorts of interesting questions. Probably none of them would pan out. Since in this case the connection between the subject matter and the model itself is completely opaque, the only way to justify your model is to show that it does something interesting. You must have missed the part where he had a Hacker News thread - it's already a success!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The idea of Strangecoin was novel enough to motivate a successful Hacker News thread, and the history of discussion on this forum was sufficient context to drive 60 pages of discussion. This settles the "why should anyone give a poo poo" matter sufficiently to justify the thread. Continuing to ask the "why should I give a poo poo" isn't a helpful analysis, it's just cynical trolling, as I said on the first page, cannot be taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Y'all just wait, he's banking these marbles right now. Once the eschaton has been immanetized, he's going to be loving rich - right after a bot that spits out gifs mixing Star Wars and 9/11
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:You must have missed the part where he had a Hacker News thread - it's already a success! It was a pretty successful thread -- it got attention because he used the word *Coin, so people assumed it was a cryptocurrency thing. Because nobody knew his history there, they phrased their responses of "I'd like the singularity to happen too, but this proposal seems incomplete and unworkable" so politely that he could pretend that it was just praise. And as far as this thread -- at, not with. Forums Barber fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I proposed an altcurrency that applies bonuses to transactions on the basis of network structure, and for this I'm responsible for justifying the atrocities of communism. This is the kind of rhetoric I'm charged with responding to in this thread from self-described "genuine interlocutors". RealityApologist posted:Racism has some benefits for the majority, but even in deeply racist societies the stereotypes relationships break down in strange and interesting ways all the tim. My claim is not that racism isn't effective for social control; of course it is. My claim is only that there are more effective and more useful methods available, and ones that operate under different values and assumptions. Cantorsdust posted:You want us to give up currency, redesign our entire economy, and apparently give up private property in order to fully implement Strangecoin. This idea, if implemented, would be as radical as full communism, and that was an ideology wars were fought over and for which millions died. You better have some pretty drat good evidence to back you up. The fact that all you can offer is handwaving and paragraphs of word salad is pathetic compared to what you are calling on your readers to do. Here's another loving example of disingenuity. I didn't say you're responsible for justifying communism. I said you were proposing an idea as radical as communism and that you should have good evidence to back you up. I was referencing an earlier post you made saying that Strangecoin is hostile to the idea of private property and that there would be no private property under Strangecoin. That's the kind of radical proposal that needs to have a very drat good reason to implement. You are now misinterpreting my quotes, denying your own previous writing, and again accusing me of not arguing in good faith. Seriously, this entire thread is a record of what you've said before. You think you can get away with lying about what you previously said? RealityApologist posted:I've made mistakes in this thread, many of which I've admitted to and tried to compensate for. But the inflated rhetoric and confusion surrounding this discussion is as much a product of the other participants in this thread as it is is a product of me. I am not the only one generating confusion and hype in this thread. It would be helpful if there were any recognition of this fact by any of the participants in this thread. You've certainly made mistakes in this thread, and you have admitted to some of them. But you certainly haven't tried to compensate for them, or you wouldn't be trying to pull this poo poo on page 60 again. I recognize that some posters are hostile to you, but I don't see that as confusion or hype. And they have legitimate reason to be hostile to you, considering your shameful posting. RealityApologist posted:The idea of Strangecoin was novel enough to motivate a successful Hacker News thread, and the history of discussion on this forum was sufficient context to drive 60 pages of discussion. This settles the "why should anyone give a poo poo" matter sufficiently to justify the thread. Continuing to ask the "why should I give a poo poo" isn't a helpful analysis, it's just cynical trolling, as I said on the first page, cannot be taken seriously. I'm not asking you to justify this thread. I can make a thread on literally anything, and as long as it isn't breaking any rules, it's justified. Hell, I can go to BYOB and make any thread and it's justified. I'm asking you to justify why we should implement Strangecoin. And you still haven't given me an answer. I explained in my previous post why it isn't just cynical trolling, but the most basic and important question you must answer to your reader. RealityApologist posted:As for the substantive question of "what is Strangecoin supposed to do?", I think that's fairly clearly addressed in the original proposal. Strangecoin is a currency where trades are modified to reflect aspects of the network structure and not merely the goods being traded. What does the economy look like if currencies operate in this way? How does that change the incentive structure of the agents in that economic system? Are there any benefits of such a framework relative to traditional currencies? These are all questions I don't know the answer to. The proposal describes a model that can be built to test these kinds of questions. I think the scope of the question is relatively modest and straightforward and interesting. And I don't think it requires me to answer for the atrocities of communism before anyone is expected to care. I understand what the network proposes to do. I don't understand why? Again, your idea would require radically changing the world to implement. If you want to convince people to implement it, you need to answer all those questions you're asking here before anyone would be convinced. And you're the self-described network theorist here, why aren't you answering them? The network itself might be interesting. I would be interested in reading what you discover after you code it up, and it would be interesting to see what kind of behaviors emerge from the rules you've set up. It's fine to claim you want to create a model, and I agree that creating such a model would be relatively modest, straightforward, and interesting. But you're not just claiming your network would be interesting. You've alternately claimed at various points of this discussion that Strangecoin would replace currency, eliminate nepotism, eliminate social castes, reify social castes, and a bunch of other pie in the sky, grandiose visions. You've compared yourself to an alchemist observing the dawn of chemistry. You've compared yourself to loving Marx. The scope of the original question may be modest, but your believed self-importance is anything but. You can't back out of this now by claiming modesty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Strangecoin is a currency where trades are modified to reflect aspects of the network structure and not merely the goods being traded. What does the economy look like if currencies operate in this way? How does that change the incentive structure of the agents in that economic system? Are there any benefits of such a framework relative to traditional currencies? These are all questions I don't know the answer to. The proposal describes a model that can be built to test these kinds of questions. I was going to elaborate on how incredibly, awfully backwards this is, but then again: RealityApologist posted:I think the scope of the question is relatively modest RealityApologist posted:Traditional economics is like alchemy, and I'm like one of the early chemists before the periodic table 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
strangecoin: the calvinball of money
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've made mistakes in this thread, many of which I've admitted to and tried to compensate for. Give me specific examples.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
This thread is incredible. Kafkaesque. People have been really nice. People have been really mean. At least two people have done significant chunks of work for RealityApologist in the form of computer modeling. And yet so little has really changed. RealityApologist's thesis isn't about an attention economy. It's about the raw futility of human existence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:strangecoin: the calvinball of money Move thread to yospos, change title.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
The funniest thing is that "Why?" is literally the only question related to this proposal that Eprisa is trained for and presumably qualified to answer. Can we just re-ban Eprisa already? He's already admitted that he's using someone else's account to avoid a ban on his other account. None of this is a secret and this well has been pumped dry. Banned Account: http://forums.somethingawful.com/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=26846 Admits to account sharing 30 sec into this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1EA8_taJmI e: uncurable mlady posted:Move thread to yospos, change title. also acceptable
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Calvinball is a celebration if childhood imagination and the sheer sense of fun being more important than structure. Strangecoin is instead that kid on the playground who has an infinity sword and says he's invincible and starts crying when no one wants to play with them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Calvinball is a celebration if childhood imagination and the sheer sense of fun being more important than structure. It was a revolution in friend-playing when my friends and I realized that it was more fun for both sides to fight and do cool things to the other person than to continually escalate the +infinity sword versus +2 infinity armor debate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The idea of Strangecoin was novel enough to motivate a successful Hacker News thread, Not a single person here gives two shits about Hacker News. RealityApologist posted:and the history of discussion on this forum was sufficient context to drive 60 pages of discussion. This settles the "why should anyone give a poo poo" matter sufficiently to justify the thread. 60 pages of people calling you stupid and showing you exactly how and why your proposals are fundamentally flawed at their core is not the same as genuine interest in seeing you succeed. It's, in fact, sort of the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:First you figure out why you want it, then you build the parts that get you what you want, then you build the parts that support the other parts. The end result might look nothing like you expected. Actually, you shouldn't have an expectation in the first place, because you'll end up building towards that expectation even if it's counterproductive to do so. In your case, you've been focused on making Strangecoin workable as a digital currency (the expectation) at the expense of its usefulness as an analytical tool (which is what you claimed you wanted it for). Your post distills a lot of the frustrations over the last few pages. I find it generally helpful when people make posts like yours that don't try to just get in a new dig at some piece of the puzzle, but really try to sum up an ongoing theme in the discussion. Unfortunately my role in the thread prevents be from being a voice of calm objectivity, so I appreciate when others step in and play that role. It really helps the coherence of the thread. So thanks, it helps. I've said many times that I don't have particular expectations for how Strangecoin will look if it gets going. I've also said quite a lot about the theoretical justification for the various structures in the system, and why the relations work as they do. Particularly, I've talked about ant colonies and organization repeatedly throughout these threads as structural analogs for how I'm thinking about social organization, and how these theoretical considerations inform the proposal I've offered. Which is to say, yes I've thought about it. A lot. I've also talked about it in these threads a lot. This hasn't always come across in the threads, and precious view people have taken the time to attempt to distill any of the theoretical claims I've laid out with anything like the calm objectivity with which you've distilled the criticism. But in the spirit of your post, I'll attempt to restate the theoretical motivation for the strangecoin transaction network for the sake of the coherence of the thread. This is not ad hoc improvisation; this is all in these threads if you've cared to look. Again, the basic idea of Strangecoin is that the value of the transaction is modified by the network structure. Why should we think that transactions should be modified by network structure? The basic inspiration for this comes from the organization of ant colonies, which are able to coordinate a complex division of labor without any centralized control. These feats of colony organization are coordinated through the interactions between individual ants. Very roughly, the ants keep track of how frequently they encounter members of the different caste types to determine how they should act. In other words, they use individual interactions to discern global properties of the colony, and adjust their behavior in light of these interactions. There's exciting work right now using models of superorganism colonies to help understand the division of labor in natural human communities. I have more (legit) references along these lines worth sharing, if people are interested. The research into natural organization is interesting and there's lots more to say about it, but the upshot here is pretty simple: ants organize because they're sensitive to network effects in each transaction. In human economies there are obviously lots of network effects that determine the value of the goods I buy and sell, but rarely are these network relations made explicit in the transactions themselves. So it seems natural to wonder if network structures can be made explicitly in economic transactions, and to see what effect that might have on the decision making process of agents in that network. In other words, I'm describing a multi-agent system, which is a particular kind of game, to see if any interesting behavior results from the game. Maybe it doesn't, but I don't know going in that it won't. I have no idea what happens in a network like this. It's an empirical question whose answer hasn't yet been settled by the thread. Why TUA? I explained TUA early on, inspired by the von Neumann result, that any nonzero sum game with n players can be represented as a zero sum game with n+1 players, with the n+1 player representing the global state of the game. So TUA is the n+1 player. Why the various transaction types? Endorsement and support address differences in the "fit" of a connection. The different is formally clear, and I think it's also intuitively clear why one would engage in one kind of relation over the other. If I endorse you, I contribute to any payments you make; if I support you, I contribute to any payments you receive. This allows me to influence either your income or expenses, and others can do the same to me. Coupling allows me to experience network effects passively, not as the result of direct influence but as the result of changes in the networks I've attached to. Inhibition is an independent measure of control for tuning one's balance independent of the network. Perhaps all the same effects can be achieved in a more simple framework, but intuitively these transaction types covered the range of controls one might need for engaging the network. I'm not wedded to them, and if it's better to drop them I'm fine with that. Apart from the specific ant articles above I don't think I'm sharing anything new in this post that I haven't attempted to articulate before. Which is to say that not only have I thought about these why questions, but I've also attempted to discuss these issues in these threads. I understand that the rhetoric from others makes me seem utterly negligent on these fronts, but I feel that the rhetoric is quite disproportionate from the legitimate work I've done in these threads to articulate, explain, and justify these views. I'm fine, emotionally and psychologically, if the result of this labor is that I'm labeled a crank in these forums. I just want to stress that I haven't cited or appealed to any literature outside of mainstream science and philosophy. I think I once asked for a bad article from a bad journal, simply because I lacked access and didn't know better. Otherwise all my sources have been reputable science; I'm not appealing to thetans or astrology or triangles or the free hand of the market or anything pseudoscientific like that. Perhaps you think I'm being pseudoscientific in my interpretation of science, although I think I'm just doing philosophy. But either way. I just want to make it clear that I'm not appealing to pseudoscience to justify anything I've said. The work I've cited from others is reputable and worth consideration independent of my cranky interpretations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:I said you were proposing an idea as radical as communism and that you should have good evidence to back you up. Proposing a multiagent system that applies network bonuses to transactions is not an idea as radical as communism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
What were the grounds upon which you were comparing yourself to Karl Marx those pages ago then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
If you had the vaguest understanding of how Humans Actually Behave you would understand that the ant colony model doesn't work for people because many people don't give the smallest of fucks about the strength of the network.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Proposing a multiagent system that applies network bonuses to transactions is not an idea as radical as communism. Yeah, it's not like you ever said that strangecoin is extremely hostile to the notion of private property or anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Proposing a multiagent system that applies network bonuses to transactions is not an idea as radical as communism. An economic system in which wealth and value are derived from a non-monetary metric is, in fact, as radical as one with no monetary metric at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Proposing a multiagent system that applies network bonuses to transactions is not an idea as radical as communism. The suggested mechanisms of implementation require a greater disruption if human relationships than communism. Fall back on it be a game or model all you want, it is clear from your first post you've got a hard-on for being some major figure in the Glasshole Gospels
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Proposing a multiagent system that applies network bonuses to transactions is not an idea as radical as communism. As if we needed more evidence of just how dismissive you are of how staggeringly disruptive your proposal would be to the basic functioning of society and the economy, presuming it even could be made to work at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The basic inspiration for this comes from the organization of ant colonies, which are able to coordinate a complex division of labor without any centralized control. These feats of colony organization are coordinated through the interactions between individual ants. Very roughly, the ants keep track of how frequently they encounter members of the different caste types to determine how they should act. In other words, they use individual interactions to discern global properties of the colony, and adjust their behavior in light of these interactions. There's exciting work right now using models of superorganism colonies to help understand the division of labor in natural human communities. I have more (legit) references along these lines worth sharing, if people are interested. Have you taken anything specific from this research beyond the idea that complexity can arise from simple interactions between simple components? Did you base your "transaction" types on what of these models of superorganism colonies perhaps? quote:The research into natural organization is interesting and there's lots more to say about it, but the upshot here is pretty simple: ants organize because they're sensitive to network effects in each transaction. In human economies there are obviously lots of network effects that determine the value of the goods I buy and sell, but rarely are these network relations made explicit in the transactions themselves. So it seems natural to wonder if network structures can be made explicitly in economic transactions, and to see what effect that might have on the decision making process of agents in that network. In other words, I'm describing a multi-agent system, which is a particular kind of game, to see if any interesting behavior results from the game. Maybe it doesn't, but I don't know going in that it won't. I have no idea what happens in a network like this. It's an empirical question whose answer hasn't yet been settled by the thread. If this is your objective it seems the starting point should be how agents behave in a simplified system. Then you add in these potentially interesting transaction types and see how their behavior changes. But you don't seem to be at all interested in what the agents do, or at least much less so compared to what interactions are possible between them. After all, your "spec" proposes to simulate agents as randomly choosing transactions. In what way is that at all interesting given these objectives? Obviously this is a difficult task which is why you should take an existing model as your starting point and apply your ideas to that. In short you're saying "hey wouldn't it be interesting if we allow these types of interactions in a multi-agent system" which is a fine research question (without all this baggage about currency and economy at least) but it's only meaningful if applied to a specific multi-agent system. You're at step 2 but you skipped step 1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Proposing a multiagent system that applies network bonuses to transactions is not an idea as radical as communism. It is if you expect this multiagent system to replace dollar transactions, abolish private property, and change the way we interact with our friends, family, and strangers. You were suggesting a cybernetic system of auras to analyze financial relationships between people! You don't think that isn't a radical suggestion? Also, you didn't address any of the other statements in my post, specifically: Cantorsdust posted:But you're not just claiming your network would be interesting. You've alternately claimed at various points of this discussion that Strangecoin would replace currency, eliminate nepotism, eliminate social castes, reify social castes, and a bunch of other pie in the sky, grandiose visions. You've compared yourself to an alchemist observing the dawn of chemistry. You've compared yourself to loving Marx. The scope of the original question may be modest, but your believed self-importance is anything but. You can't back out of this now by claiming modesty. You can't back out of this by claiming a "modest proposal" now. You said you have this grand vision that's going to change the world, not just a multiagent model.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
I can't believe you're still going with this shite. Hey look a squirrel 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Again, the basic idea of Strangecoin is that the value of the transaction is modified by the network structure. Why should we think that transactions should be modified by network structure? So one of your former colleagues wrote 40 pages of vague, poorly justified analogies between interesting ant behaviour and Human Computation (granted, he admits it is an entirely speculative work at the end), and you are still running with this in any random direction you can think of, despite not actually having any direct evidence that any kind of model for ant behaviour can be applied to humans. Keep in mind that the paper you linked provided only the most tenuous of connections between ant behaviour and open source software development (  ), the rest was all speculation on its applicability to a future of mass Human Computation - which explains your obsession, I guess.Back to reality, though: You're once again talking about a game, and StrangeCoin as a system that modifies human behaviour. So it's no longer a model, right? Because if it modifies behaviour, then it certainly isn't going to be a useful model of existing economies. It's back to being a new economic system, but you're retreating a bit from that and calling it a game, perhaps because you're worried that it will result in destructive behaviour, or accidentally abolish private property. Well actually, you're not really sure what will happen at all, but you sure do hope someone else will figure it out for you. RealityApologist posted:Perhaps all the same effects can be achieved in a more simple framework, but intuitively these transaction types covered the range of controls one might need for engaging the network. I'm not wedded to them, and if it's better to drop them I'm fine with that. Ok cool! Go ahead and develop a simpler - minimally simple - framework that describes the behaviour of humans as ant colonies, or encourages humans to behave like ants, or whatever the gently caress it is your goal is. Then come back when you actually have an interesting result. Also don't call those transactions intuitive if you can't even figure out how to define them exactly. Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Then you shouldn't say you don't have the required technical skills to test your ideas, because you do. Of course there's value in talking it through and working on your writing but that only takes you so far. I was going to say more but what Alien Arcana said sums it up. Whoa there, I think you're assuming far too much good faith and understanding of the nature of competence. If Eripsa goes so far as to say RealityApologist posted:introductory RealityApologist posted:played around RealityApologist posted:my old CS training is still kicking around Then you can be sure that he basically means "I purchased these books or checked them out from the library, then built a fort out of them on my desk so that the kindest and most forbearing of my former colleagues will continue to think I'm an intellectual. I have no training because I lack both the focus and sanity to train."
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Ok cool! Go ahead and develop a simpler - minimally simple - framework that describes the behaviour of humans as ant colonies, or encourages humans to behave like ants, or whatever the gently caress it is your goal is. Then come back when you actually have an interesting result. He can't strip the framework down because then he's just described a Whuffie and he'll never get the techno-singularity-nerd ecred validation he wants with Cory Doctorow's idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:What were the grounds upon which you were comparing yourself to Karl Marx those pages ago then? Reminder: RealityApologist posted:Traditional economics is like alchemy, and I'm like one of the early chemists before the periodic table or anything else was developed but who has a pretty good sense that alchemy is just bad methodology and that there's an alternative science just around the corner. And you all are like "but why should I believe in the atom" as if I'm heretical for suggesting alchemy needs some updating, and there's honestly nothing I can say to satisfy the lot of you. The only thing I can do is be earnest and try my best. OP's kind of a self-important idiot who has no idea what he's doing but he's drat sure it's the best thing ever, ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:OP's kind of a self-important idiot who has no idea what he's doing but he's drat sure it's the best thing ever, ever. He did double back on those remarks though if I recall correctly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:He did double back on those remarks though if I recall correctly. See also: Every other remark he's made.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:He did double back on those remarks though if I recall correctly. This isn't doubling back. It's five-hundreding back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:He did double back on those remarks though if I recall correctly. He sure did a complete 360.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 10, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The basic inspiration for this comes from the organization of ant colonies, which are able to coordinate a complex division of labor without any centralized control. Ok, so what human behaviours can be utilised to simulate ant organisation? If none exist, then what sort of new behaviours would need to be introduced in order to fulfil your vision of organising people in a similar manner to ants? As I understand it, a decent part of organisation is achieved by using pheromones (leaving trails, alarming neighbours). If the idea is to use phones/electronics/Internet to simulate these processes, then what sort of behaviours would you need to instil into people to make use of artificial pheromones? Would it be autonomous or require some human intervention? What sort of intervention? Would you require any equipment, how long would it take to operate the equipment? Would people need to permanently wear any equipment (likely if data is collected passively)? Do you require the operation and maintenance of external infrastructure (network, servers, data centres, communications equipment...)? For ant's it is instinctual, for humans it's not in any way natural, intuitive or seamless. What are the costs (cognitive, temporal, financial...) of implementing an ant based organisational system verses. the expected benefits? This is the first question that would need to be answered before you can even begin to hash out a solution, and do any fiddling with numbers. That is the truly hard part; it informs the plausibility of your idea, but also the way which you can reasonable implement it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 04:45
|
|
