Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 333 of 420 FirstFirst ... 233283323331332333334335343383 ... LastLast
Results 24,901 to 24,975 of 31490
  1. #24901
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    The Nazi party is the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

    (In before "That's not real socialism.")

    The concept of irony escapes you, right, spoon? North Korea is also officially called "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"

    As we all know, they have a very real and strong democracy there.

    That is the problem with ideologies
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  2. #24902
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Looks like something an intern put together.
    Keep telling yourself that
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  3. #24903
    Why do you think I say it looks like something an intern put together?
  4. #24904
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    The concept of irony escapes you, right, spoon? North Korea is also officially called "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"

    As we all know, they have a very real and strong democracy there.

    That is the problem with ideologies
    From Wikipedia:

    Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist rhetoric
    Okay yeah, totally the same thing as Korea.
  5. #24905
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What do you think extreme form of capitalism is?
    There are many. Crony capitalism, oligarchies, even laissez-faire

    Whenever people do not give a fuck about others (one might say, does not give a social fuck) in the name of the dollar we are at peak bad capitalism.

    Which is why all extremes are bad, mmmkay?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  6. #24906
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Why do you think I say it looks like something an intern put together?
    I like it when you tell me what you think, rather than me having to imply what you think
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  7. #24907
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I'm really not sure if any type of interaction on here is some type of autistic chess game for you and the only goal is to annoy people. Like you quote the one part of my response that is obviously just an example and completely irrelevant to my point and then you respond to that... I'm conflicted because you are a known troll but I honestly don't give you enough credit for being this elaborate in your trolling.
    And then your trademark snippets of fucking nonsense non-sequiturs like the "the goal of socialism is communism"... theories don't have goals and you have made it abundantly obvious that you are not very clear on the definition of either socialism or communism... or fascism as we recently discovered.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  8. #24908
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    From Wikipedia:



    Okay yeah, totally the same thing as Korea.
    Yeah, you forgot to mention they also made a sport out of cooking jews, blaming them for every single bad thing that happened. Spoon, had you not seen the more recent posts, all extremes are bad, mmmkay? Nazis = fascists as fuck. Totally take their supposed socialism out of the window. Since you like to quote wikipedia, here goes:

    Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce[3] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
    Now can you please not do a reductio ad hitlerum in every discussion?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  9. #24909
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    There are many. Crony capitalism, oligarchies, even laissez-faire
    Sounds not thought through.

    Whenever people do not give a fuck about others (one might say, does not give a social fuck) in the name of the dollar we are at peak bad capitalism.
    There's a field of academic scholarship devoted to explaining the functioning of innate human self-interest.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 12-29-2017 at 09:10 PM.
  10. #24910
    It is truly fascinating how one can quote fascism in the way that it is an exact definition of Marxism and socialism yet rationalize why it somehow is not Marxism and socialism.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 12-29-2017 at 09:18 PM.
  11. #24911
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    I like it when you tell me what you think, rather than me having to imply what you think
    Because it's a smorgasbord of contemporary naughty ideas.
  12. #24912
    It's like, "Hey do we not like this thing? Yeah we don't like it? Okay let's call that fascism."
  13. #24913
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    It's like "Hey let's notice that thing whenever someone else does it, but let's be completely oblivious whenever we do it."
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  14. #24914
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It is truly fascinating how somebody can quote fascism in the way that it is an exact definition of Marxism and socialism yet rationalize why it somehow is not Marxism and socialism.

    Ok ok, I'll play

    Let us take Netherlands as an example. Deeply socialist motherfuckers over there. We could take Norway, Sweden, Denmark, any of the scandies (except Finland because fuckem and their 40 sillable words [you know I'm playing pocketfours, coccobill, chill out])

    Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,
    Nope. There is a king. But there are also elections. Strong elections. Many, many parties. All of them can be in government and opposition at the same time. They have as their sole goal to improve the lives of their denizens. That is all.

    [1][2] characterized by dictatorial power,
    Nope. No dictator or dictatorial regime in view. Try again.

    forcible suppression of opposition
    Again. no dictator around. There is no supression of any kind, not of speech, not of religion, not of opinion, not of parties, not even of right to die or abortions. There are no restrictions whatsoever of any kind. You want to have an abortion, fine, go ahead. It's your body, decide what you want to do with it.

    and control of industry and commerce[3]
    I can't say a lot about this for a few reasons. Not a lot is in the government hands. But the government is intertwined in the more important parts of society, for instance infrastructure (that includes roads, which means a pothole is abnormally rare sight, but also internet, which means net neutrality with stupid fast speeds for all yay!) and electricity. Water is braakwater but drinking water is cheap,

    that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
    Oh, that's them german fuckers which tried to take over the world. Nowadays they are busy doing engineer work. An example of probaly the sexiest engineer of all time is femme_felis on instagram,



    Wuf, there is nothing to fear about the so-called "scandinavian socialism". It is a good mix of socialism, democracy and capitalism, in order to ensure a happy populace. As you have more money, you will have more "draagkracht" (loosely translated to "carrying power"), mneaning you can contribute more to society. That is all. No one stops working because of this.

    And no, we do not have any form of "no one left behind".
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  15. #24915
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    It's like "Hey let's notice that thing whenever someone else does it, but let's be completely oblivious whenever we do it."
    You talking about terrori ... I mean, drone strikes?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  16. #24916
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  17. #24917
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    It's like "Hey let's notice that thing whenever someone else does it, but let's be completely oblivious whenever we do it."
    How are we doing it?
  18. #24918
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    And in a sick twist of faith, poopadoop and Jack Sawyer have been the least annoying FTR members as of late.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  19. #24919
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Ok ok, I'll play

    Let us take Netherlands as an example. Deeply socialist motherfuckers over there. We could take Norway, Sweden, Denmark, any of the scandies (except Finland because fuckem and their 40 sillable words [you know I'm playing pocketfours, coccobill, chill out])



    Nope. There is a king. But there are also elections. Strong elections. Many, many parties. All of them can be in government and opposition at the same time. They have as their sole goal to improve the lives of their denizens. That is all.



    Nope. No dictator or dictatorial regime in view. Try again.



    Again. no dictator around. There is no supression of any kind, not of speech, not of religion, not of opinion, not of parties, not even of right to die or abortions. There are no restrictions whatsoever of any kind. You want to have an abortion, fine, go ahead. It's your body, decide what you want to do with it.



    I can't say a lot about this for a few reasons. Not a lot is in the government hands. But the government is intertwined in the more important parts of society, for instance infrastructure (that includes roads, which means a pothole is abnormally rare sight, but also internet, which means net neutrality with stupid fast speeds for all yay!) and electricity. Water is braakwater but drinking water is cheap,



    Oh, that's them german fuckers which tried to take over the world. Nowadays they are busy doing engineer work. An example of probaly the sexiest engineer of all time is femme_felis on instagram,



    Wuf, there is nothing to fear about the so-called "scandinavian socialism". It is a good mix of socialism, democracy and capitalism, in order to ensure a happy populace. As you have more money, you will have more "draagkracht" (loosely translated to "carrying power"), mneaning you can contribute more to society. That is all. No one stops working because of this.

    And no, we do not have any form of "no one left behind".
    Like I pointed out before, Scandanavian countries do not model socialism to that great of a degree. They are in many very important ways more capitalistic than any other countries too.
  20. #24920
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Also facing the fact that nobody here is going to experience black and white communism or capitalism in their lifetime I think it's kind of funny how excited you guys get by which unicorn dick you're gonna get fucked with in the near future.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  21. #24921
    Caring so much about the abstract really does seem to be retarded.
  22. #24922
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    I'm really not sure if any type of interaction on here is some type of autistic chess game for you and the only goal is to annoy people. Like you quote the one part of my response that is obviously just an example and completely irrelevant to my point and then you respond to that... I'm conflicted because you are a known troll but I honestly don't give you enough credit for being this elaborate in your trolling.
    And then your trademark snippets of fucking nonsense non-sequiturs like the "the goal of socialism is communism"... theories don't have goals and you have made it abundantly obvious that you are not very clear on the definition of either socialism or communism... or fascism as we recently discovered.
    "The goal of socialism is communism," is a direct quote from Vladimir Lenin. I may have been mistaken in assuming most everyone would have known that.

    Also note that both Marx and Engels used communism and socialism interchangeably, and I think they'd know more about what they're talking about that you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Yeah, you forgot to mention they also made a sport out of cooking jews, blaming them for every single bad thing that happened.
    Which is completely irrelevant to the fact that they were a socialist party and that they didn't just use the name because they were actually the opposite ala North Korea.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Caring so much about the abstract really does seem to be retarded.
    That's more or less the guiding principle of how to get someone to type out paragraphs and paragraphs in response to like a five-word sentence.
  23. #24923
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    And in a sick twist of faith, poopadoop and Jack Sawyer have been the least annoying FTR members as of late.
    Hey!

    No way has Jack stopped being annoying.
  24. #24924
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    "The goal of socialism is communism," is a direct quote from Vladimir Lenin. I may have been mistaken in assuming most everyone would have known that.

    Also note that both Marx and Engels used communism and socialism interchangeably, and I think they'd know more about what they're talking about that you.
    Jeez you got us there. We all know the meanings of words never change over time.
  25. #24925
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    "That's more or less the guiding principle of how to get someone to type out paragraphs and paragraphs in response to like a five-word sentence."
    To what end? I think you're not very good at making an argument, even if you're trying. So you're mixing up things you really think with the most horrendous logical fallacy's that have to be obvious even to you, because that way you can never "lose" the argument. You're either right, or you can dismiss any response with "lol I trolled that idiot". But what could that possibly do for you other than boost your ego? So I think that's the only thing you're doing here is to make yourself feel superior at the expense of other people. I just don't understand how that can be satisfying. That's the reason people even engage with you: they don't realize that this is just one giant ego trip for you.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  26. #24926
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    "That's more or less the guiding principle of how to get someone to type out paragraphs and paragraphs in response to like a five-word sentence."
    To what end? I think you're not very good at making an argument, even if you're trying. So you're mixing up things you really think with the most horrendous logical fallacy's that have to be obvious even to you, because that way you can never "lose" the argument. You're either right, or you can dismiss any response with "lol I trolled that idiot". But what could that possibly do for you other than boost your ego? So I think that's the only thing you're doing here is to make yourself feel superior at the expense of other people. I just don't understand how that can be satisfying. That's the reason people even engage with you: they don't realize that this is just one giant ego trip for you.
    You can hit enter twice to make a new paragraph.
  27. #24927
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    For someone who uses the phrase à la without knowing what it means you are quite the stickler.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  28. #24928
    Wuf, why do you insist on the either or fallacy regarding what makes Scands have relatively successful societies?

    I think, if not in your case, in general, this insistence that all the good in Scandinavia is born of the free market elements of their society and in kind the socialism is a drag on that good is simply a knee jerk response to the idea that we (Americans) should import their systems.

    The argument is better made by pointing out that there are myriad factors at play and that we can no easier become a supersized Scandinavia than we can usurp Germany's roll as the preeminent global engineering and precision manufacturing hub. There are qualities which are, if not inherent, certainly deeply ingrained in societies which make rote imitation folly. However, that doesn't mean there's nothing to learn, and it most definitely does not mean that only those things which reflect our values and/or institutions are responsible for the good in other societies.

    China is a great example of this. They have much less individual freedom, yet they are becoming a powerhouse. Some observers may claim that their success is due to their adoption of free market values and institutions-- this is true, but it misses what I think is more likely to be the big picture. It is the adoption and integration that make them successful. They are not just imitating Western democracies, and rooting their society's shift in what we think makes us successful, they are taking successful aspects of our societies and grafting them on to their own. It is this hybrid that makes them successful. It is the fact that they have a one party state that can turn on a dime which is nurturing a young free market on their terms.

    I'd argue that it is not China's shift towards an unfettered free market that has made them such a player on the world stage, but their shift towards a balance point. Due to each societies inherent/ingrained attributes, the balance points are not always, and often won't be, the same or even similar. It's all about finding an equilibrium-- only the trouble is there is not one equilibrium and another's equilibrium is almost certainly not yours.
  29. #24929
    The balance point idea has merit when it comes to managing peoples political and social sensibilities. When it comes to identifying likely causes of changes in well-being, we're looking at what works and at what doesn't work. Generally speaking and in terms of economics, free market capitalism encapsulates what works and socialism and welfare don't. As an example, I'll discuss this in terms of the models used in labor economics. In those models, generally speaking, the more welfare somebody gets that isn't tied to production, the less demand that person has to produce. Since production is the source of economic well-being, this means the model shows welfare is a drag on well-being. To show welfare benefiting well-being, it would need to be shown how it increases production. Now, there are probably some iterations of welfare that could be beneficial, but those aren't the ones that countries have adopted.* I don't know of any widely used models that show welfare acting as an incentive to produce instead of disincentive.

    Regarding China, the increase in well-being correlates with increase in capitalistic oriented reforms. And we have theory that explains why that could be the case. If somebody wants to say a balance is needed, well, that's true for reasons like political and social ideals held by people. But that doesn't mean that the other side of the balance is causing increase in well-being. In a way, you're getting a very important idea, that what people BELIEVE matters. Even if you have a policy that normally disincentivizes production, if people BELIEVE they want to produce more due to some other reason, then the result can be the normally disincentivizing of production policy indirectly incentivizing production.

    So, I want to say that I do agree with you. Scandinavian countries have a lot of stability and comfort in their systems and the people believe the systems benefit them, which incentivizes them to act like the systems benefit them, which results in the systems benefiting them. But let's make no mistake, it isn't the policy itself that benefits them, but their belief in it. Here's an example in a different field. Economist Bryan Caplan calls the education system "stable waste" because it is technically a very wasteful use of resources, but because so many people have comfort with the system and the system is stable, there is benefit that emerges from staying with that system. This is the case even though, he argues, that the data show that higher education does not create greater competence or skills. We spend millions on a signaling mechanism that works because we're comfortable spending millions on it and we have learned how to interpret the results somewhat reasonably.


    *For the most part. Singapore has done some that seem okay, and I can come up with some that would be great, but the "great" also assumes that voters and politicians would magically support something they don't normally support.



    Another thing to note is that economic models are ceteris paribus. But in the real world, the ceteris is never paribus. So, you can have some unidentified variable turn a policy that is bad ceteris paribus into a policy that is good. As you can see, this creates a huge hole in understanding of the economy. You can have ten different economists give ten different views because they are trying to go beyond the ceteris paribus, which often opens things up to interpretation quite widely. In terms of what we are discussing, if a welfare policy is designed such that it goes against the ceteris paribus effect in theory, like if it reduces incentive to produce, that doesn't mean that it will result in disincentive to produce because not all variables can be adjusted for. However, thinking in terms of production incentive is still the proper way to do it. It would mean that this welfare policy increased the production incentive, and I would want to see how.
  30. #24930
    I should clarify that it isn't that the education system is "stable waste" but that much of the promotion of it (via government and people) is stable waste. Per Caplan, about 5% of people *should* go to college. The rest of us (which includes me) would lead more productive lives if incentive structures created by policy (and beliefs) weren't so geared towards college.
  31. #24931
    I'm not absolutely convinced that these things that create good by balancing out unfettered free markets are only able to do so because people believe they do so-- however, I think you make a good case for this, and I'm happy to land on "economic models can tell us a lot, but externalities stop being externalities once we leave the lab." By this I mean, the models either need to account for people's perceptions, as they stand, or they are not useful in enacting policy.

    And I think this is at the heart of what Jack and many non-freemarketeers(did I just coin that?) see as a hypocrisy: In theory, communism works, if everyone believed it works, and in theory an unfettered free market works if people's beliefs don't get in the way. I'll acknowledge this is an asymmetrical hypocrisy, but I think it's the causes of a lot of talking passed each other in conversations on this topic.
  32. #24932
    On one hand I think I agree that the religion of higher education leads to waste, but on the other, capitalism does create this endless need for growth. And this growth isn't just limited to the bottom line. The incentive to produce is contingent on the belief that you can improve the lot of you and yours. From that we get the idea that your living standards will improve throughout your life, but more importantly that your children will have better opportunities which will open the door to standards of living beyond what you yourself will ever reach.

    This means that societies will necessarily outgrow industries. Manufacturing for example, of the kind we did here at scale, is not viable because the people who did that work did it to pay it forward to their children, and in turn their children grew up with the idea that they would either do the same work and be compensated better than their parents, or that they would level up to a white collar.

    Look at the World of Tomorrow exhibits at world's fairs when things were really churning. There was a promise of leisure for the every-man just over the horizon. That's the engine of capitalism. Maybe we've arrived, but they just got the imagery wrong-- maybe perpetual education is what leisure for the every-man looks like. Maybe we are living in the far off promise of capitalism.
  33. #24933
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    On one hand I think I agree that the religion of higher education leads to waste, but on the other, capitalism does create this endless need for growth.
    Is it that capitalism creates an endless need for growth or that people innately have insatiable desires and capitalism is one method to manage the resources?


    And this growth isn't just limited to the bottom line. The incentive to produce is contingent on the belief that you can improve the lot of you and yours. From that we get the idea that your living standards will improve throughout your life, but more importantly that your children will have better opportunities which will open the door to standards of living beyond what you yourself will ever reach.

    This means that societies will necessarily outgrow industries. Manufacturing for example, of the kind we did here at scale, is not viable because the people who did that work did it to pay it forward to their children, and in turn their children grew up with the idea that they would either do the same work and be compensated better than their parents, or that they would level up to a white collar.

    Look at the World of Tomorrow exhibits at world's fairs when things were really churning. There was a promise of leisure for the every-man just over the horizon. That's the engine of capitalism. Maybe we've arrived, but they just got the imagery wrong-- maybe perpetual education is what leisure for the every-man looks like. Maybe we are living in the far off promise of capitalism.
    It's an interesting thing to think about. Liberal arts really is for the aristocracy. But now most of us have it "better" than the aristocrats of old ever did.
  34. #24934
    I no longer say the world would be a better place if markets were freer. Even though I do think that, I don't frame it like that because I think that the freeness of markets reflects what people believe and what people want. We get the society we create, and what we create derives from what we believe and where we put our efforts. We demand free markets in dating because we believe those markets should be free, and we don't demand free markets in healthcare because we believe those markets should not be free.

    My goal is to ask questions (and get others to ask questions) that otherwise would not be asked. Policy follows the zeitgeist.
  35. #24935
    Is it that capitalism creates an endless need for growth or that people innately have insatiable desires and capitalism is one method to manage the resources?


    This is not meant to be snarky, maybe I'll actually think on this and answer it, but this is earnest: does it matter?

    I no longer say the world would be a better place if markets were freer. Even though I do think that, I don't frame it like that because I think that the freeness of markets reflects what people believe and what people want. We get the society we create, and what we create derives from what we believe and where we put our efforts. We demand free markets in dating because we believe those markets should be free, and we don't demand free markets in healthcare because we believe those markets should not be free.

    My goal is to ask questions (and get others to ask questions) that otherwise would not be asked. Policy follows the zeitgeist.


    Interesting. I think that this sort of stance opens up the possibility for not only the most productive, but the most interesting conversations. Is this a new thing for you? Like, has your outlook changed, or has mine changed?
  36. #24936
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    [/FONT][/COLOR]This is not meant to be snarky, maybe I'll actually think on this and answer it, but this is earnest: does it matter?
    I think it matters because it's the idea behind capitalism being driven by humans versus capitalism driving humans. A common criticism of capitalism emerges from the idea that it drives humans and things would be hunky dory otherwise. The base assumption of economics is that this is not the case; instead humans have essentially unlimited desires. From one frame, capitalism is a tool; from a different frame, capitalism is a culprit.



    [/FONT][/COLOR]Interesting. I think that this sort of stance opens up the possibility for not only the most productive, but the most interesting conversations. Is this a new thing for you? Like, has your outlook changed, or has mine changed?
    I think we're both more sophisticated. For me in this way, it's about being less dreamy-eyed and less idealistic, and instead acknowledging that even if I think my free market ideals would better peoples lives, if implemented many would probably be reversed because people don't believe in them. Also it's not about changing minds here and now. Debate entrenches prejudices. It's more about providing a new perspective that may emerge as relevant in a later experience. It could be said that way to get freedom is to get people to think freely.
  37. #24937
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    If you're only talking about economic well-being I'm sure you're right, but I don't think economic well-being and quality of life are as closely correlated as we'd like them to be. Once you reach a level of economy where everyone's basic needs can be met, I don't think you're doing much for quality of life by trying to maximize productivity.
    I'm also curious how current economic models are going to work out in about 20 years when a majority of low-level jobs have been replaced by automation... and I'm more curious how you would suggest they could work without welfare.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  38. #24938
    I think your characterization of capitalism as a tool is accurate-- however I do think, sticking with the analogy, a tool can enable an abundance of good to the extent that you have an even bigger problem than the tool was initially crafted to solve. That said, I think you're right, making the distinction is important, else people be tempted to flush the baby with the toilet water.

    Regarding us leveling up: I'd like to think so. The cool thing about this approach is that it's a hedge against being wrong. It creates a comfortable atmosphere to share ideas and hash out the short comings and strengths of different ones, and ideally it ends up being an environment where people feel that "switching sides" is also a condition of success along with being right. What's the adage "have strong convictions, but hold them loosely"?
  39. #24939
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    And in a sick twist of faith, poopadoop and Jack Sawyer have been the least annoying FTR members as of late.
    LOL good to know I'm as annoying as I used to be, but still definitely annoying
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  40. #24940
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    If you're only talking about economic well-being I'm sure you're right, but I don't think economic well-being and quality of life are as closely correlated as we'd like them to be. Once you reach a level of economy where everyone's basic needs can be met, I don't think you're doing much for quality of life by trying to maximize productivity.
    I generally agree. Though this appears to be adjusted for if we use a comprehensive enough view of "economic." The concept is essentially about resource allocation. And happiness does derive from resource allocation. That doesn't mean we know which allocation yields greater happiness. Freely choosing producers and consumers seems to be the most useful mode of "determining" what that allocation is.

    I share your concern though. Okay, so, adoption of free market principles have made it so people starve less, but has it made our lives more fulfilling? I'm not sure it has. That doesn't mean the answer is to restrict free choice of individuals since it isn't known that the specific restriction increases fulfillment.


    I'm also curious how current economic models are going to work out in about 20 years when a majority of low-level jobs have been replaced by automation...
    The idea of labor being replaced by technology is as old as the history books. It has been happening for a very long time. In isolation, it looks like the effect is substitution, but in the bigger picture, the net effect is complementary. Counterintuitively perhaps, technological replacement of jobs creates even more jobs than before.

    Remember the tractor. How many farmers did it put out of work? The tractor might be the biggest "automation" event in human history. If not for the tractor, most of us would still be farmers. But because of the tractor, production soared enough that people could put efforts into things other than farming. We have today so many different industries that would not exist except because of the tractor. The automobile eliminated so many horse related jobs, a backbone of the economy. Yet the automobile ended up creating far more jobs. Pick a technology and it will probably have a similar history of job losses in one sector but overall net job gains for the economy, indoor plumbing, computers, electric saws, photography, etc..

    In some hypothetical future, it could be the case that technology eliminates any comparative advantage humans have by working, which means humans would stop working. Though that would mean that the technology is so productive that it provides so much for humans that we literally can't make our lives any better by working. In this world, there still wouldn't be a place for welfare. Think of it like this: the proposed need for welfare in a world with productive enough machines that work is obsolete assumes the old world where machines are not productive enough to make work obsolete.

    I wish I could answer this better but I can't. I know people are very concerned about the effects of automation on jobs. Economists are not concerned by it and there are some very smart ones who should do a better job of communicating why.
  41. #24941
    I should add that the popular idea regarding automation and it causing a supposed need for welfare assumes distributional effects of wealth that I think are false. An owner of automated production can only gain as much monetary representation of wealth as how much those who consume his products give. If consumers are so poor because of automation because they no longer can labor, it means the business owners would also be poor since consumers have no ability to purchase. This is akin to mass destruction of wealth and production, yet that is obviously the opposite of what people are trying to think of when they think of the effect of automation on wealth distribution.
  42. #24942
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Regarding us leveling up: I'd like to think so. The cool thing about this approach is that it's a hedge against being wrong.
    Fucking bingo.

    One of the few things (very few things) I consider a real virtue of my character is that I am open to being wrong and I admit it. Sometimes it has been tough, but I have put a good deal of effort into cultivating the ethic that the only way to truly be perpetually wrong is to not acknowledge when I am wrong. And I am wrong often. In fact, I'm wrong way more than I am right. Of the one right way to do something, there are uncountable numbers of wrong ways to do it. It's not like anybody has the market cornered on intuitively and automatically knowing all the right ways to do all the things.

    My history of wrongness is a source of pride for me. It keeps me from being bullheaded and full of myself. And it keeps me on my toes. And it's funny.

    I voted Obama 2012. I used to vigorously argue in favor of socialism. I was a young-Earth creationist. I thought all disease could be cured with diet. I became an atheist.* I thought the film Hero sucked. I once hated Trump.

    I was wrong about all these things. I laugh about them now. And I know knowing I was wrong and laughing about my highly fallible human-ness is a good thing.


    *Though I am still an atheist and probably will always be one, with what I know now, I probably would not have left my religion. Also I might convert to Catholicism at a later date. I'd do it because of the enriching community and ritual it could provide me, and also if I have kids. Atheism, as a mode of being, roughly speaking, is some bullsheeit. It took me a long time to realize it, though the atheist sensibility has been deeply embedded in my person that I think I would probably die before I no longer *feel* like an atheist.

    It creates a comfortable atmosphere to share ideas and hash out the short comings and strengths of different ones, and ideally it ends up being an environment where people feel that "switching sides" is also a condition of success along with being right. What's the adage "have strong convictions, but hold them loosely"?
    Very smart adage.

    A mechanic I propose for why the adage is smart is that if you believe something, it is your duty to represent that thing to the fullest capacity you have, because then you'll see if it stands up to the pressure and you can keep the belief or if it crumbles and you need to change.
  43. #24943
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I voted Obama 2012. I used to vigorously argue in favor of socialism. I was a young-Earth creationist. I thought all disease could be cured with diet. I became an atheist.* I thought the film Hero sucked. I once hated Trump.
    lol fucking cuck

    I told you motherfuckers. I told every fucking one of you. I told you Trump wins the primary and beats Clinton but doesn't win the popular vote. But nooooo, you bunch of Nate Silver nut hugging cock goblins riding the 538 pussy train thought you could stump the Trump. Now you've been assimilated. Praise Kek.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 12-30-2017 at 10:40 PM.
  44. #24944
    That aint even the worst of it
  45. #24945
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That aint even the worst of it
    Well since we're having confession hour, I used to believe all human beings were equal.
  46. #24946
    That's Nate Hydrogen to you.



    Just fuck my shit up fam
  47. #24947
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Well since we're having confession hour, I used to believe all human beings were equal.
    you monster
  48. #24948
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    you monster
    It was honestly probably the single largest source of suffering in my life.
  49. #24949
    I went through a spell of thinking that the mental differences between the sexes is due to environment. Fortunately that wasn't a source of real problems for me. Other things take that mantle.
  50. #24950
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I went through a spell of thinking that the mental differences between the sexes is due to environment. Fortunately that wasn't a source of real problems for me. Other things take that mantle.
    Related to this and what I said, I'll give an example that didn't happen to me but that happened to a little cousin. I say little, but he's almost 20. Fuck I'm old.

    Long story short, the kid kind of got himself into some hot water after he sent a more-or-less unsolicited dick picture to this girl in his friend group a few weeks ago. They had been a little flirty when hanging out, so sent her a dick picture the next day or whatever. He caught a bunch of shit from her and other people in the group of friends over it, and he couldn't figure out what went wrong.

    He asked me about it, and his logic was that if she sent him pictures of her tits, he would think that was a good thing. I told him I get what he's saying, but men and women aren't the same, and he can't go around acting like they are, or shit like this happens.

    He wanted to argue with me about it first, but then there was this moment when I could see that the light bulb turned on in his head.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 12-30-2017 at 11:50 PM.
  51. #24951
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post

    He asked me about it, and his logic was that if she sent him pictures of her tits, he would think that was a good thing. I told him I get what he's saying, but men and women aren't the same, and he can't go around acting like they are, or shit like this happens.
    Would he have liked it if she sent him a dick picture? This is one thing I don't really get that guys do. I've never felt the need to send someone a dick pic. I also wouldn't be all that keen to receive unsolicited pictures of cunts either so maybe I'm the odd one...

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I went through a spell of thinking that the mental differences between the sexes is due to environment. Fortunately that wasn't a source of real problems for me. Other things take that mantle.
    But they are, mostly.

    Unless you're talking about something weirdly specific your post doesn't really mean but you're going to say it does.
    Last edited by Savy; 12-31-2017 at 01:58 AM.
  52. #24952
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Would he have liked it if she sent him a dick picture? This is one thing I don't really get that guys do. I've never felt the need to send someone a dick pic. I also wouldn't be all that keen to receive unsolicited pictures of cunts either so maybe I'm the odd one...


    But they are, mostly.

    Unless you're talking about something weirdly specific your post doesn't really mean but you're going to say it does.
    The mental differences that are commonly apparent. The context isn't in absolute terms regarding the sexes, but in what is commonly experienced day to day as differences. Does this make sense or should I clarify?
  53. #24953
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The mental differences that are commonly apparent. The context isn't in absolute terms regarding the sexes, but in what is commonly experienced day to day as differences. Does this make sense or should I clarify?
    Nah but I don't care either.

    So I'm really not feeling today, may just go bed early and skip all the shit. Either that or start drinking in like 2 hours so I'm out for the count before 12.
  54. #24954
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    But they are, mostly.
    Not even close. Even the makeup of our brains are incredibly different (down to the types of brain matter we have), which is one of the physiological bases of being transsexual.

    As an example, you can see major behavioral differences even in the womb.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 12-31-2017 at 10:41 AM.
  55. #24955
    God, not being able to easily quote is obnoxious.

    Regarding technology taking our jobs: Automation is not what is scary. That's stage 1. If AI can be realized, our usefulness as labor will be superseded in every way. There are two modes of human labor, manual (possibly unintuitively this includes many mental tasks, such as calculating sums, etc) and abstract. Many would think of the latter as "creative", which is a fine stand in. This category covers the entirety of remaining labor tasks a human is capable of, and should general AI come into being their capabilities will surpass our own.

    Will this happen in a few years, a few decades, or? I'm not sure I have a good grasp on what the best estimates are, but it seems all signs point to it being an inevitability.

    Wuf, you put forth the idea that basic economic principles restrain the wealth of the ones who harness the AI (let's for now ignore how likely or unlikely it is that any human or humans will be capable of keeping an general AI under their thumb), and I'd like to hear you elaborate on this, but intuitively it doesn't seem to make sense. The reason that capital's wealth is theoretically restrained by labor's relative wealth is labor's underlying and ever present threats of strike and their ultimate trump card, revolt. These moves are nullified by a general AI; most obviously so in the case of strikes, and in the case of revolt-- well, revolts need labor, and the side with the AI has functionally infinite labor.

    This is why there is a very real concern that we need to get our shit together before singularity, because in the best case, one in which our AI's incentives remain aligned with our well being, if we don't have a plan for how the functionally infinite resources are allocated, we're just hoping and wishing the first across the finish line will chose to be a benevolent demigod.
  56. #24956
    Regarding religion:

    Wuf, I think you're making the mistake of insisting the goods of religion are the sole domain of religion. Because they are typically cloaked in a religious context, it can be hard to figure out how they function in a secular world, but I think the athiest/secular/skeptic movements are really waking up to this and realizing that a lot of value was left behind in the haste to abandon faith based thought systems. You may find the book Waking Up by Sam Harris to be a good read. I think you'd enjoy the podcast as well, but it covers all sorts of topics that happen to interest Harris, while the book specifically addresses the concerns I think you're expressing about living without religion.
  57. #24957
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Regarding religion:

    Wuf, I think you're making the mistake of insisting the goods of religion are the sole domain of religion. Because they are typically cloaked in a religious context, it can be hard to figure out how they function in a secular world, but I think the athiest/secular/skeptic movements are really waking up to this and realizing that a lot of value was left behind in the haste to abandon faith based thought systems. You may find the book Waking Up by Sam Harris to be a good read. I think you'd enjoy the podcast as well, but it covers all sorts of topics that happen to interest Harris, while the book specifically addresses the concerns I think you're expressing about living without religion.
    Thanks for the rec. My thoughts currently are along the lines of I think human psychology and the human condition are innately religious, and I believe this is revealed in secularism too. The most prominent secular drama are embedded with meta-heroes and moralism, for example. Do you know Jordan Peterson?
    Last edited by wufwugy; 12-31-2017 at 03:45 PM.
  58. #24958
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Wuf, you put forth the idea that basic economic principles restrain the wealth of the ones who harness the AI (let's for now ignore how likely or unlikely it is that any human or humans will be capable of keeping an general AI under their thumb), and I'd like to hear you elaborate on this, but intuitively it doesn't seem to make sense. The reason that capital's wealth is theoretically restrained by labor's relative wealth is labor's underlying and ever present threats of strike and their ultimate trump card, revolt. These moves are nullified by a general AI; most obviously so in the case of strikes, and in the case of revolt-- well, revolts need labor, and the side with the AI has functionally infinite labor
    I didn't mean to suggest that owners' wealth is constrained by labor but constrained by consumption. We see this in how the owner of McDonald's doesn't make a buck if a consumer doesn't buy a burger. The labor element is because I think the popular criticism of automation posits that this would reduce wealth among workers but not wealth among owners. I'm not sure that is possible, in aggregation, since it would mean less stuff is being bought. The labor/capital stuff you're referencing, with strikes and such, is micro, firm-specific. I'm thinking in macro terms not micro terms, if that helps.

    Regarding AI, if we assume humans can fully control AI even as it reaches singularity, wouldn't that create a world in which the AI does everything, that the AI does so much that humans have no need to do anything? AI would be so cheap you could own a household of them for a penny, roughly speaking. If there is so much advanced AI that I can't make myself better off by using my own human capital, then that means the AI provides for me everything that I have ability to demand. This is essentially what automation does in little bits. It more efficiently produces goods and services people want, which frees up human capital to do other things.

    People have legitimate concerns about automation. I think they are legitimate because economists have not answered them well enough. The best answer I can come up with is that the concern about automation emerges from a variation on the make-work bias, where the view is that labor is itself a good or a source of wealth (it's not). A world in which humans can't labor to produce because automation is so effective is a world converging on post-scarcity, which means that humans wouldn't NEED to labor in the first place. This convergence on post-scarcity is already happening in some ways. How many hours does somebody have to labor today to have the same level of absolute wealth in goods and services that the 60-hr/wk worker had 200 years ago? It isn't anywhere close to 60 hrs/wk.

    So that raises the question, why are people still working so much and why are people still unhappy? I'd guess because people care about well-being in a relative sense, not an absolute sense (beyond a base of non-starvation type things). I imagine a future where the poorest people have it better than Bill Gates does today, and yet they'll still be concerned with their contemporary Bill Gateses who have it a little bit better than them.

    Give a kid with nothing a cookie and he's happy. Give him a cookie and his brother a cake and he's unhappy.
  59. #24959
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The labor element is because I think the popular criticism of automation posits that this would reduce wealth among workers but not wealth among owners. I'm not sure that is possible, in aggregation, since it would mean less stuff is being bought.
    BTW this is not a model I would use. I am referencing it here because I believe it is a model used by many concerned about automation and propose a need for welfare to counter. The first reason I don't like this model is because it seems to assume that wealth is money (it isn't) and that labor is wealth (it isn't). Wealth is best thought of in terms of production and product. A man buying a car is not less wealthy by doing so. He's actually more wealthy since he values that car more than he values the production-symbolized-by-the-currency-he-used-to-buy-it-with. The populist view is that only the person who gains the money from the transaction experiences wealth increase.

    With this in mind, it becomes apparent how the idea that automation reduces the wealth of consumers is nonsensical. Automation increases consumer wealth.
  60. #24960
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I didn't mean to suggest that owners' wealth is constrained by labor but constrained by consumption.
    It is constrained by labor (it's constrained by lots of things). I was just pointing out the way in which it is constrained by consumption instead of other constraints.
  61. #24961
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I didn't mean to suggest that owners' wealth is constrained by labor but constrained by consumption. We see this in how the owner of McDonald's doesn't make a buck if a consumer doesn't buy a burger. The labor element is because I think the popular criticism of automation posits that this would reduce wealth among workers but not wealth among owners. I'm not sure that is possible, in aggregation, since it would mean less stuff is being bought. The labor/capital stuff you're referencing, with strikes and such, is micro, firm-specific. I'm thinking in macro terms not micro terms, if that helps.
    To make matters confusing, the McDonald's example I used is micro. It's the stuff about automation and welfare in general that I'm thinking in macro terms.
  62. #24962
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Was there ever an explanation of why the forum double posts and fucks up quotes and edits sometimes? I was gone a long time.
  63. #24963
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    edit, quotes and almost anything else outside of quick reply stopped working for me about a month ago.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  64. #24964
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I'm not as concerned with the AI revolution as I am with the AI revolution happening with governments still being stuck in the industrial age. They're still idealizing low unemployment rates, continuous growth and maximum wealth when I think the obvious goal should be universal unemployment. I don't think your analogy to the industrial revolution will hold water. This not an entirely uninformed opinion, but it is speculative enough that I don't want to dive into it (and I'm very drunk atm) but I see the job market taking a massive nose dive within our lifetimes and there won't be new jobs to replace them. You could create fake jobs though government subsidiaries, which would be retarded. Or you could create unnecessary jobs by restricting deployment of AI in certain areas, which would be even more retarded, or you just figure out how to distribute wealth.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  65. #24965
    Yeah we are probably in for some stuff that nobody predicts that well.
  66. #24966
    i did the whole switch thing that mmm said to do, that jack told him to do i think. it works. i forget what it is. mmm or jack migth know.
  67. #24967
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Happy new year people! Do something productive and also good this year!

    Here's a quick recap of what happened in 2017

    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  68. #24968
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    edit, quotes and almost anything else outside of quick reply stopped working for me about a month ago.
    Check these vids out oskar, they might help you

    https://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerf...69#post2281469
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  69. #24969
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Check these vids out oskar, they might help you

    https://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerf...69#post2281469
    Nice! That works. Thanks!
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  70. #24970
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Resident asshole takes YouTube by storm!
  71. #24971
    Wuf, regarding AI, you seem to assume that AI will be ubiquitous in the sense that it will be a consumer good. This could be the case, but I think the more convincing prediction is that we're much more likely to see a singular entity when the dust settles. This is because singularity is not a stable state of being, it's the spark at the start of an exponential intelligence explosion, which is likely to result in, from our perspective, god like abilities. Should we be able to control it, or build it in a way in which it's interests remain aligned with ours, there is no reason to think that control will be democratized. Whoever gets there first, whether it is a government, an individual, a corporation, etc, they will be incentivized to stop all contenders from getting to singularity.

    It's like nuclear armament, except if you're first across the line you can use your nukes to peacefully dismantle everyone else's nuclear programs. Whether you are benevolent or otherwise, this is always the optimal play when there are seemingly no reprecussions-- you've got ~godmode, and perma ~godmode if you make this move.

    But look, even if we posit a world in which multiple super human intelligences exist-- there is no reason to think we all will get our own, or access to instruct them. If we do all get our own, or if we have a benevolent overlord (whether it is human controlled AI or just AI), labor no longer has power. The game is unbalanced. This has always been the dynamic, there is an often unspoken agreement that should the rulers push too far, the ruled will strike, mutiny, revolt. The scenarios in which singularity has happened and the masses somehow retain these moves are by far in the minority of possible scenarios.
  72. #24972
    I probably agree with some of that regarding what ultimately will happen with AI. I really have no clue what the future world will look like with strong AI.

    On the economics of it, an organization gains monopoly power by having sufficient control of a resource to sell. I don't think strong AI has much chance of being one of those things. This is because the raw material that will go into strong AI will probably be widely available and the technicians with know-how to build it will be many. Additionally, before one company reaches "singularity", many other companies will approach it as well. The difference between the first company and the next closest company will be a marginal difference. I don't mean that it will be small, but that it will be marginal, meaning that what put the first company over the top would be "the next step" in the process kind of thing.

    Strong AI could look different ways depending on what government does too. Government can monopolize it similar to military technologies like nukes and ICBM. Military power has natural monopoly components that I don't think strong AI would, because the resources it takes to build them are vast. But a singularity-achieved AI, even if it starts out at a billion bucks to make one, would (theoretically) quickly develop more efficient ways of using the resources to make AI, and eventually the cost would be minuscule. Or at least something along those lines. It could be that the cost disappears entirely. An exponentially increasing in efficiency resource utilizing entity changes everything (and humans may be sacrificed in the process).
  73. #24973
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    We don't know how current AI's (machine learning implemented toward a specific goal) do what they do. We only know that we told them to keep pecking away randomly, trying to maximize some given parameters. The programmers who create that software do not create the middle bits of the code, which can be the vast majority of the running code. They only create the method to create new code and a goal.

    It's fascinating, but the postulate that humans will create the AI of the singularity is remarkably slim. No human will understand the first true AI, as it will be self-made as an emergent property of a larger program... based on very little facts and loads of speculation, obv.
  74. #24974
    I find the concept of singularity difficult to wrap my head around.

    It's like, geez, if a being makes itself smarter then uses that smarterness to make itself even smarter, rinse repeat, what in the fuck even happens?
  75. #24975
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I find the concept of singularity difficult to wrap my head around.

    It's like, geez, if a being makes itself smarter then uses that smarterness to make itself even smarter, rinse repeat, what in the fuck even happens?
    IDK. Probably something to do with resource management, though. Ask an economist.

    Hey wuf... what happens when all the known material wealth is controlled by a single entity? Oh wait... that sounds a lot like hydraulic despotism... better ask a poli-sci expert.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •