Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[None]

thank goodness for capitalism saving us from the products of capitalism that were slowly killing us

it's really cool how unleaded paint and chlorofluorocarbons were outcompeted by the free market

[McTraveller]

The goal of "capitalism" isn't to create more capitalism though...  at least not originally.  Arguably the goal of capitalism is the efficient allocation of resources - the problem is the definition of "efficient" doesn't necessarily mean "good for the average random individual."

I could see perhaps an AI coming up with a scheme that is both efficient (in terms of requiring the fewest resources to perform some task) and equitable (most even distribution of resulting goods and services across the population), but unless you give the AI some means of enforcing that scheme, I don't know what good it will do.

[Starver]

The goal of "capitalism" isn't to create more capitalism though...  at least not originally.  Arguably the goal of capitalism is the efficient allocation of resources - the problem is the definition of "efficient" doesn't necessarily mean "good for the average random individual."

If it's reimagined as the whole Paperclip Problem, a systemic goal that does not necessarily take account of the means to achieve that goal (and anticipate what it might not be meant to usevas means), you get problems. Monomanaicity of any kind is bad.

I could see perhaps an AI coming up with a scheme that is both efficient (in terms of requiring the fewest resources to perform some task) and equitable (most even distribution of resulting goods and services across the population), but unless you give the AI some means of enforcing that scheme, I don't know what good it will do.

I think that's still overestimating that the solution is possible from an undirected AI. Piping the AI's proposals to enforcable solutions is so trivial (and typical Hollywood nightmare-fuel when it oversteps the bounds).


There was an interesting set of talks about how AI perhaps should be designed/handled. I presume you can get to some listenable/watchable version by following this link (there may be geofencing on some bits, or I'd point you more directly to the media files or container-pages that would service you).

There were also some companion broadcasts (in the vein of R&F's "Curious Cases" set of programmes) that might be interesting if you can appreciate them.


I've got a few personal 'yeahbut's about what's said, I will admit, but nothing that I feel qualified to outright trash the views given...

[EuchreJack]

Hm, perhaps our salvation is in connections?

Thought problem: If you had a weapon that could kill anyone, yet had to observe their entire life as their best friend and confidant before you could use it, under what scenarios would you use the weapon?

It should work on AIs._{Like I know}  Hopefully, they find us each to be too unique and interesting to kill.

[Grim Portent]

Hm, perhaps our salvation is in connections?
Thought problem: If you had a weapon that could kill anyone, yet had to observe their entire life as their best friend and confidant before you could use it, under what scenarios would you use the weapon?

It should work on AIs._{Like I know}  Hopefully, they find us each to be too unique and interesting to kill.

I imagine except for preventing large scale murder it would be very hard to use such a weapon. Even then it would probably be heart wrenching to do so, the human mind being what it is.

For an AI however it would likely not bear such a weight, machine learning as yet does not grow attached to things the way animals do, and programming in emotions seems unlikely to be a good use of time and money. Killing a human would likely be much the same regardless of how much a given program knows them unless it's basically identical to a human mind anyway, in which case why entrust them with such a weapon?


I think the thing about AI is that it's going to just develop the ability to more and more accurately predict a given individuals needs and preferences and tailor their user experience based on those predictions. Be it a household appliance predicting your shopping needs and lighting preferences, or a government ruling mega-AI working out what job and work/life balance will make you happiest while having the least impact on it's ability to keep everyone else happy too.

[KittyTac]

I don't really believe anarchism is viable. That's about it. I guess I am a social democrat but I am a lot less political than I used to be.

[King Zultan]

I feel the world would be a better place if everyone was a lot less political.

[EuchreJack]

I feel the world would be a better place if everyone was a lot less political.

Ironically, it's actually the opposite that is true.
Most people like to bitch about politics but never really participate.  60% of people in the United States vote in Presidential Election, whereas only 40% vote in non-Presidential Elections. 
And what percentage of people really understand the importance of non-Presidential Elections?
Imagine The More You Know Rainbow here.  Actual participation in the political system imparts knowledge, and knowledge imparts understanding.

Plus, if more moderates participated in politics, the fanatics would lose control of their parties.  God, I'd love that!