Here is a treat that can give you a diffrent perspective
http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf

OK, I must reluctantly concede defeat at this time

bitcoin could create massive social upheaval due to governments’ rapidly degrading capability to fulfill their core functions of taxation and regulation of commerce.
…
It may take a few years for everyone to realize it, but there will come a point when the ever-increasing outflows of money from fiat money into untaxable, unseizable decentralized currency will reach a tipping point, and we’ll have a financial panic like the world has never seen. Frightened lawmakers and banks will try to stop people from cashing out, but that will just increase the panic.
…
Has it ever occurred to you that hyperinflation can happen while the printing presses are off? The value of the money in your pocket is not ultimately guaranteed by your government, but by simple supply and demand. If demand falls precipitously, we have hyperinflation without ever needing to print another dollar or euro. If people start fleeing government currencies en masse, hyperinflation is the inevitable result.
…
All the world’s wealth has essentially been stolen, but by whom? By you, dear reader… We’ll be very lucky if we aren’t all rounded up and summarily executed.
…
This is where things get really bleak. Currently distributed currencies facilitate money laundering, black market commerce (the Silk Road), and insider trading (TorBroker)... they get MUCH bigger, but we will see applications which are much less savory.... the “Dark Net” accessible by Tor and private networks...is quickly becoming the platform of choice for large-scale illegal commerce.
…
Does anyone really expect the government to sit back quietly and watch...The only question is when and how they will strike back against these forces. While the government does have a lot of options, ... At some point, …our governments face a difficult choice between trying to survive this deadly storm or attempting to destroy all decentralized computer networks (including the internet). The former seems unthinkable, the latter, impossible.
…
I wouldn’t be surprised if this chaos gives rise to a strong, centralized, one-world government which gets its revenues by tightly reigning in freedom of commerce in order to collect taxes.

Of course they are both compatible with each other -- they both assume a materialistic world-view as a starting point. In other words, they're both wrong.

No quibbles that we're all unique
But your only evidence for the rest is your entropic argument. Further, your interpretation of creativity is unsatisfying from a philosophical point of view, because:
-of your reluctance to address the phenomenon of consciousness (and by extension, all that hard-to-explain stuff that goes along with it, like qualia).

The core idea of first-order representationalism is that any conscious state is a representation, and what it’s like to be in a conscious state is wholly determined by the content of that representation. By definition, a representation is about something, and the content of a representation is what the representation is about.

First-order representationalism argues that consciousness consists of sensory representations directly available to the subject for action selection, belief formation, planning, etc.

"Aw, you're no fun anymore."  I don't see it as argument so much as a dialectic pursuit of a more accurate predictive model.

Most of these seem to be temporary conditions, technologically determined (most obviously 2,4,5).  Some are arguable either on relevance (1,7) or math (3).  

(6) seems wrong.  In the developed world, the cost of adding a human is quite remarkable, in regulatory terms.  It's like science:  Human experiments are absurdly difficult to do.  You hire in France at your own risk.  Technological unemployment spreads from centers of technological advancement.

And capital will do much better than either, apparently.  Welcome to Elysium.

I should rephrase.  I mean 99.99% of all humans will have no occupation which is not better fulfilled by a machine.

I'm not arguing for any technological singularity, merely that all jobs as we know them today (where all means perhaps 99.99%) can be technologically obsoleted.  I care nothing for "creativity" as pixie dust, or whether the machines are "sentient", personally.  

Communism?

We don't need someone else to give us a job. We certainly don't need governments to create artificial employment. We will create roles in society for ourselves which don't have to be given but which we instead become. You become a dad, you don't petition the government to make you a father. If you have time to be a better father then invest more time raising your kids, teach them, play with them, and if you don't have kids then find some game you like to play and profit from it.

There are so many things to do which can be made into economic activity but small minds want to make it seem like we have to obsequiously bow to some master let them decide how we spend our time? The idea you described is communism.

Actually your solution combines the worst of communism, authoritarianism, and capitalism. You want government to create a bunch of bullshit jobs to keep people from doing real work and solving real problems? How about you add professional TV watcher to that list, but only government approved channels.

I am not saying this is the best possible solution only that it is better then the two options listed in the poll[/size]

The dice are introduced only to directly address the bugaboo of entropy.  Creativity boils down to a entropy plus a selective filter, for which there suffices a metric function representing judgments of taste.  You brain has several of these, which vary over time, and tend to be similar to those of other brains, but ultimately they are pretty simple metric functions which can be implemented in algorithms.  The dice do not adapt, but the algorithms do.  

Kasparov may or may not be capable of compassion; I don't know.  He seems like a cool guy to me.  I would have voted for him, were I a Moscovite.  But because compassion is ill defined, it seems unlikely to lead to a fruitful discussion.  The ability or inability of an algorithm to exhibit compassion doesn't bear strongly in an obvious way on it's ability to captain a large economic enterprise, or invent a new surgical technique.

The theory that it would be impossible to predict what computers would contemplate is nonsense because the input entropy of the models of the brain will always be finite and deterministic from the time the input entropy is varied.

Pseudo-random number generators are deterministic from the time the seed is changed. Even dynamically capturing entropy from the changing content of the internet would be deterministic from each moment of capture to the next, and the model of capture would be lacking diversity and static (only modified by a human).

For computers to obtain the same entropy of the collective human brainpower, they would need to be human reproducing, contributing to genome and interacting with the environment in the ways humans do. Even if computers could do this, the technological singularity would not occur, because the computers would be equivalent to adding more humans to the population.

I think at some point the discussion devolved into the threat of those learning-by-experience AI's being abused in the way they were not intended to be, and the possible fallout from, say, an accounting AI being sexually molested or introduced to porn to screw with its programming (I may have been the instigator of that somewhat-derailment, but I plead the 5th )

I value people generally for the quality of their character and whats in their heart - I measure it by the effect they have on their friends.

 I think that is probably the root of my compassion, such as it is - nay, my humanity.

Great book to read "The Master and His Emmisary", I.McGilchrist. The rationalisation that has occurred over time in society has (according to McGilchrist) been as a result of the left hemispere of the brain having gained ground over the right hemispere. This, he argues, has been to the detriment of society.

Too much talk of idiots in this thread for my liking, by the way.

Non sequitur.

There is no need for sentience in the job description of a professor, an electrical engineer, a test pilot, or a graphics designer.  Sentience is intensional.  Labor is extensional.

Algorithm ≠ Entropy

Proponents of the technological singularity theory cite the exponential increase in computing hardware power such as Moore's Law and recent software advances such the sophisticated Spaun artificial brain which can pass simple IQ tests and interact with its environment; also IBM's Watson computer which defeated Jeopardy and chess masters, subsequently was recently programmed to do lung cancer diagnosis more accurately than human doctors.

However, the speed of the computing hardware and the sophistication of the software has no relevance because creativity can't be expressed in an algorithm. Every possible model of the brain will lack the fundamental cause of human creativity— every human brain is unique. Thus each of billions of brains is able to contemplate possibilities and scenarios differently enough so that it is more likely at least one brain will contemplate some unique idea that fits each set of possibilities at each point in time.

An algorithm or model can describe what and how to do and even be generalized to respond to unknown future scenarios by observing patterns and deducing rules about its environment, but it can't vary its imperfections nondeterministically, because the input entropy (to the algorithm) is known a priori and is finite. Whereas, for the collection of all human brains, the entropy is unbounded and thus the future can't be predetermined, i.e. isn't deterministic.

That is functionally a public dole but with 'hoops' to jump through so you can feel people are not being 'lazy', it's simply to satisfy your perception of what is 'good' for people to do despite your complete admittance that the activities done are not economically productive.  I fail to see how anyone calling himself a libertarian can be for mandating that people submit themselves to a kind of serfdom.

An idle mind is the devil's playground." - Lisa Marie Presley

But these 2 options are the only ones possible in the long run! And the first one must be implemented worldwide to sustain.

So after only giving one quick read through of some of AnonyMint's posts on page one and then skimming a couple other recent messages, I've decided this is my favorite thread of all time.  It goes exactly in line with my own recent economic thinking (though really, most of the things he hits on extend far beyond economics to a much larger philosophy).

Now if only I wasn't currently stuck at this mindless job that will eventually be replaced by computers, I could properly read through all this and draw my own conclusions... one day

Because they will think better, more accurately, faster, with better information, and more reliable results, that any human every could.  If you choose to trust your own reasoning which is flawed, instead of trusting superior reasoning, then you will be wrong, and will fail to compete with those who do trust the more correct reasoning.  If you employ a human instead of a robot, your business will fail to compete with purely automated businesses.  Under such circumstances, no publicly held corporation, with a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, could risk hiring a human.