Economic Devastation

[aminorex]

We used to have to calculate everything using paper and pencil, and memorize multiplication tables. Now we have calculators. We used to have to memorize facts, encyplopedias, and history. Now we can easily look up those things through google and wikipedia. I don't understand why with computers becoming ever more advanced, we won't just continue to use them to supplement our own thinking the same way we did with calculators, google, etc.

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.

[7thKingdom]

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

[CoinCube]

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.

Sure you can hire a human. They will ask for less money then the robots. Any machine capable of surpassing a human in all areas of thought would be sentient and logically refuse to work for less then its labor was worth.

Any less advanced/non sentient computer will have flaws that require human oversight or have areas where they underperform humans.

[CoinCube]

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

This is my favorite thread of all time too but I am a little biased =)

[practicaldreamer]

Interesting thread - though I didn't follow a lot of it tbh. I particularly agreed with the autodidacticim being the way forward idea FWIW.

But I would just like to add that I personally value human beings (for the mostpart) not for their capacity to reason, not for their "cleverness" (being clever never on its own managed to get anyone into Heaven after all), not for their contribution to the global knowledge base, their IQ, fitness for purpose, the class of their degree etc etc. - most of that stuff is arbitrary.
   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.

[aminorex]

no publicly held corporation, with a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, could risk hiring a human.

Sure you can hire a human. They will ask for less money then the robots. Any machine capable of surpassing a human in all areas of thought would be sentient and logically refuse to work for less then its labor was worth.

Any less advanced/non sentient computer will have flaws that require human oversight or have areas where they underperform humans.

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.

[CoinCube]

no publicly held corporation, with a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, could risk hiring a human.

Sure you can hire a human. They will ask for less money then the robots. Any machine capable of surpassing a human in all areas of thought would be sentient and logically refuse to work for less then its labor was worth.

Any less advanced/non sentient computer will have flaws that require human oversight or have areas where they underperform humans.

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.

That is true only to an extent. The routine aspects of those professions can be automated.
Its in the area if creativity that algorithm breaks down.

To quote from one of the links above. Information is Alive

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.

[CoinCube]

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.

Individual value to society is about much more then IQ and salary. Many people who earn high saleries do so only because they have figured out way to privatise gain and socialize loss. I like the Solari Index A neighborhood of your valued individuals above even if low income would probably have a high index and be a nice place to live.

[Rassah]

We used to have to calculate everything using paper and pencil, and memorize multiplication tables. Now we have calculators. We used to have to memorize facts, encyplopedias, and history. Now we can easily look up those things through google and wikipedia. I don't understand why with computers becoming ever more advanced, we won't just continue to use them to supplement our own thinking the same way we did with calculators, google, etc.

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.

I think you missed my point somewhat. Right now, I trust the reasoning of my Excel calculated financial spreadsheet way more than I would trust the reasoning of someone doing calculations and projections with paper and pencil. I can get reliable results instantly, and in many more forms, without having to think about it, or even do any math in my head. So the position of accountant and mathematician is replaced with a position of someone who is able to analyze great amounts of data that were simply not available before, and make informed decisions based on learned skills and past experience. My thinking and reasoning skills are the same, but technology has augmented them to allow me to do vastly more complex things, rather than simply replacing me.

[Rassah]

That is true only to an extent. The routine aspects of those professions can be automated.
Its in the area if creativity that algorithm breaks down.

To quote from one of the links above.

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Thought_Isn't_Fungible

I don't know if you were in on this discussion, but a long time ago in another thread we were talking about self-learning AI, genetic algorithms, "ghosts in machine" scenarios, and computers that are actually taught, bit by bit, as opposed to having their knowledge written as is with algorithms. There is research underway where such robots are taught to recognize things and interract with their environment, from scratch, where the AI is composed of the sum if its experiences, as opposed to a predetermined algorithm. This makes each AI unique, but is in a way like raising a child, where the process of training is long and tedious. There are also more recent developments in processor design, where instead of logic gates being switched on and off like in current CPUs, they are treated like networks and the on/off "connections" are "hardened" as they are more frequently used, just like the neuron networks in out brains are "hardened" with more permanent connections as we memorize things to long-term memory.

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 )

[aminorex]

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.

That is true only to an extent. The routine aspects of those professions can be automated.
Its in the area if creativity that algorithm breaks down.

pish and tosh.  a pair of dice well interpreted and persistently thrown will exhibit more creativity than all the humans in history combined.

creativity can't be expressed in an algorithm.

untrue - unless, perhaps, you restrict yourself to deterministic algorithms which do not modify themselves.  but that would be a strawman.

Every possible model of the brain will lack the fundamental cause of human creativity— every human brain is unique.

Firstly, there is no reason why a creative algorithm should be strictly required to model a brain.  Secondly, every running instance of said algorithm can be unique.

An algorithm or model ... can't vary its imperfections nondeterministically, because the input entropy (to the algorithm) is known a priori and is finite.

I find it curious that you could think so.  It's trivial to do so, as any competent programmer here should be able to tell you.  There is no lack of entropy to harvest.  Take a look at the sun, for example.  Indeed any single event pair in a continuous domain provides infinite entropy, if it is measured with infinite precision.  Only Unschärferelation limits entropy harvesting.  And how much entropy does it honestly take to come up with the creative products of 99.9999% of humanity?  Not very damn much, frankly.

[freedomno1]

Well I'm part of the IPE stream of thought
International Political Economy for those not aware and believe we are just consistent with Stranges structures
The development of economic growth is moving beyond the state structure which has a negligible impact and flows are moving based on a practicum of localization demand and markets

After all power is understood to be both economic and political, which are interrelated in a complex manner. The interactions we see are just a form of world economic movement towards this end goal.

That said the rise of the shadows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8ERfxWouXs&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA&feature=c4-overview
The Money Masters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDtBSiI13fE
And A few videos establishing the rise of big oil are all part of this structure as well and make valid points to it.

Whether its to economic devastation or that NWO people enjoy is another story just like Gavin Going to visit the Council of Foreign Relations
Aka video 1
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=412846.0;topicseen

[practicaldreamer]

"pish and tosh.  a pair of dice well interpreted and persistently thrown will exhibit more creativity than all the humans in history combined."



Excuse my ignorance - but what have the dice brought to the table ?

How is a die adapting to circumstances for which there is no precedence ? What are they creating ?


Deep Blue may beat Kasparov (just) - but Kasparov is capable of compassion. And for that there can be no algorithm - can there ?

[aminorex]

"pish and tosh.  a pair of dice well interpreted and persistently thrown will exhibit more creativity than all the humans in history combined."
Excuse my ignorance - but what have the dice brought to the table ?
How is a die adapting to circumstances for which there is no precedence ? What are they creating ?
Deep Blue may beat Kasparov (just) - but Kasparov is capable of compassion. And for that there can be no algorithm - can there ?

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.

[practicaldreamer]

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.

Maybe not - but what it does mean is that the algorthm may (or may not) lack the ability to ever discern which new surgical technique should be brought about/undertaken, due in large part to its inability/ability to ascertain value in regards to the social world/human beings.
 

[CoinCube]

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 )

Nothing wrong with a little derailment now and then. We are all here on our free time to learn a little and hopefully have a little fun too =)
I must have mised the corruption of AI with porn conversation.  

Personally I think we are far far away from anything remotely resembling true computer self aware AI. Millions of years of optimization through natural selection are going to be very difficult to reproduce.

Medical understanding of the human brain remains very limited. We know broadly what areas control what functions. We also know the basic chemistry of how an individual neuron works.

How does that all fit together to form consciousness? We have a lot of unanswered questions in that area.

[CoinCube]

"pish and tosh.  a pair of dice well interpreted and persistently thrown will exhibit more creativity than all the humans in history combined."
Excuse my ignorance - but what have the dice brought to the table ?
How is a die adapting to circumstances for which there is no precedence ? What are they creating ?
Deep Blue may beat Kasparov (just) - but Kasparov is capable of compassion. And for that there can be no algorithm - can there ?

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.

Despite starting to feel like the junior disciple of another programmer... one with a big ego  ... I will quote him once again to reply to your error here. You argue that the sum of human creativity can be duplicated by a simple metric function implemented in algorithms. This is not correct.

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.

[aminorex]

You argue that the sum of human creativity can be duplicated by a simple metric function implemented in algorithms. This is not correct.

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.

Ah, you're claiming that a deterministic algorithm cannot be creative.  That's an entirely different matter.  If it were true it would be a consequence of the definition of creativity, and as such a semantic issue, not interesting from the point of view of economic understanding.

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. 

I'm a working practitioner of machine learning applications in natural language understanding, risk analysis, model generation, and financial control optimization, and I've a pretty good grasp on how difficult it is to make a machine do a given intelligent behaviour.  Many of those behaviours are "creative" in the ordinary language sense.  That kind of creativity is simple conceptual synthesis, and stochastic algorithms of a very simple form often suffice to produce intelligent creative behaviour which satisfies a need.  At the moment at which part of this creativity is applied to adapting the mechanisms of the creative process themselves, i.e. to self-improvement, such that sources of entropy are self-selected, the system is (1) no longer predictable deterministically, (2) no longer recursively computable, (3) has no known limits in its ability to adapt or learn.  Such systems are not generally practical for complex uses at this time, but progress is steady.  They may not incorporate your sparkle magic creativity or sentience, but they are qualitatively different from finite-state automata.

[CoinCube]

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.  

99.99% of the jobs from 4000 B.C. have been technologically obsoleted already. I expect this process to continue and accelerate for the foreseeable future.

I'm a working practitioner of medicine specializing in the supression of consciousness so our backgrounds are somewhat different.

[aminorex]

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.  

99.99% of the jobs from 4000 B.C. have been technologically obsoleted already. I expect this process to continue and accelerate for the foreseeable future.

I'm a working practitioner of medicine specializing in the supression of consciousness so our backgrounds are somewhat different.

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

One could argue that a large proportion of current employment would be done better by a machine.  Graeber, an LSE anthropologist, argues that most "bullshit" jobs exist to control the population.

It's nowhere near 99.99% however.

I'm looking forward very much to the rumored Penrose Hammerof paper.