A Resource Based Economy

[grondilu]

Why wouldn't it be possible?  Why your brain would be so different from a machine?

As far as I can tell, I'm the only consciousness in existence, and "everything else" is just a product of my imagination in my little universe. At least with people, there is empirical evidence suggesting that they are capable of mirroring my feelings, sense of mercy or justice and many other human concepts.

Empirical evidence is not the appropriate tool for inferring the possibility of things that do not exist in the present.

[1714226137]

1714226137

[1714226137]

1714226137

[1714226137]

1714226137

[mobodick]

Yes, Zeitgeist is communism in another skin. Adding computers and robots does not make a planned economy work.

Actually the idea of "machines doing all the work" wouldn't be a too alien idea to the people leading the industrial revolution. The machines are indeed doing almost all of it now if you take into account what "work" meant back then.

It's not "robots do all the work" that's the issue here. It's the "AI plans the economy" that causes me to worry.

I think you are confused about what an AI is.
AI doesn't imply self-awareness or conciousness.

Nothing I said required or even implied that the AI that "got it into it's head" that humans were getting in the way would be conscious. A computer system designed to run an economy efficiently would almost by definition see humans as inefficiencies and act to remove them.

You're oversimplifying the problem.
An AI that would see humans as inefficient would never be introduced as it would not function in its role to regulate humans. It would fail from the beginning.
Or do you think we would invent an AI and hook it up to control the whole of humanity just to see if it would work?
Of course not, that would be useless.
We would engineer it to function in a certain way and so we would engineer it so it's task is to make humans survive.
Such an AI would just never consider damaging humans.
The only escape would be if such an AI would somehow acquire self-conciousness so that it can somehow sidestep it's designation and start acting in a way that cannot be stopped by humanity.
But if you see how AI works in practice you can see that this is not a real threat unless we specifically desing an AI that behaves in such a way.

[mobodick]

Well, i don't think you want creativity in this case.
The whole idea of RBE is that the decisions the AI takes are more scientifically sound than what humans could oversee. So the idea is that it needs to be based on facts, not creativity.
Atonomy is not a problem per se. Your computer does lots and lots of autonomous things.
The problem is maybe that we would not like the cold hard decisions of such a system would make without our personal concent and with no human emotions to fall back on.

Creativity is necessary for autonomy (because autonomy means you can adapt to unexpected situations, and to do so you need creativity).

And autonomy is necessary if you want a system where no human labor is necessary (which is the main objective of RBE proponents, iirc).

Nonsense.
An amoeba can adapt to its surroundings but i don't see it being 'creative'.
My computer can draw graphics autonomously (without me telling it what to do) and yet it never showed any creativity (unless you mean the artifacts from overheating )

You are projecting way too much human stuff onto life and other machinery.
We are not general examples of life. In fact, we are pretty amazingly specific examples of life. It's just silly to think humans are the default and to expect intelligence to be human-like in nature.

[myrkul]

Now I'm confused.  You posted a link to a state that existed from 930 to 1262 as evidence of the viability of a system invented by a guy born in 1819.  Did Gustave invent anarcho-capitalism, or the time machine?

I'd expect better respect for freedom from someone with "Amagi" as their user pic... You said that running defense and justice on the free market had never been tested. I showed you when it had. Worked for even longer than the republics that have been tested so far. Gustave de Molinari simply put that together with ideas from his contemporaries, and came to the quite reasonable conclusion that if a monopoly is bad in one sector of the economy, it's bad in every sector. Market competition ensures fairness in the pricing and dispensation of produce, and it will (and has) ensured fairness in the pricing and dispensation of protection and justice.

[mobodick]

Artificial Intelligence is a cybernetically impossible transformation. It's just not possible to create it, by definition.

Machines can be arbitrarily complex but they are defined in such a way that they depend on Man to control them. In computer science AI is used as a weasel word to describe mechanisms which attempt to solve problems using mathematical concepts which should, in theory enable the machine to compute solutions for problems it wouldn't have sufficient computational strength using other methods.
In transhumanism it refers to self-improving machines which again can not be constructed by definition. Every machine will still have a constraint defined by the parameters it is programmed even if it is able to construct copies of itself and use stochastic processes to fine-tune the parameters.

+1 I couldn't have put it better myself.

As for 'the singularity', I call bullshit on that one too. It can't be done. Someone show me a compelling argument that it's theoretically possible for machines to have consciousness, and I will eat my words.

Why wouldn't it be possible?  Why your brain would be so different from a machine?

As far as I can tell, I'm the only consciousness in existence, and "everything else" is just a product of my imagination in my little universe. At least with people, there is empirical evidence suggesting that they are capable of mirroring my feelings, sense of mercy or justice and many other human concepts.

Your definition of intelligence is too specific.
What you propably talk about is human intelligence.
And sure enough, human intelligence is so specific that we would need to recreate most structures of the brain to create such an intelligence.
But intelligence is a much broader concept.
Intelligence is best classified as an information system for dealing with the environment.
In that view even DNA molecules contain intelligence because they lead to specific manipulations of the environment.
Everything that manipulates the environment in a deliberate manner (acting on information) can be said to possess intelligence.
Human intelligence is just a very very specific case of intelligence.
In the case of an AI controling society, there is nothing that requires that AI to be concious or something like that.

Well, for the purposes of a central authority to run 'our' lives, why toy around with machines that are far simpler than humans? Why not use the best there is, i.e.: actual humans? Some might argue that it's a complex, rewarding job.

Here's a hint.
The original problem was that we humans do a bad job.
Then why on earth would you want the replacement to act like a human?
It's a stupid projection of an ideal human onto a machine.
It's a crucial mistake to think that a better intelligence lies along the same lines as human intelligence.
But it is an easy mistake to make because human intelligence seems like the best kind of intelligence we know of.

[memvola]

If you want real emotion you would need to evolve it and so you would have to present the same kind of environment to the developing mechanism to make it develop these qualia we call emotions.

This doesn't make any sense. Are you proposing that qualia are transcendental?

[myrkul]

If you want real emotion you would need to evolve it and so you would have to present the same kind of environment to the developing mechanism to make it develop these qualia we call emotions.

This doesn't make any sense. Are you proposing that qualia are transcendental?

He's saying (and I agree) that a programmed simulation is not the same thing as a true emotion.

[grondilu]

Nonsense.
An amoeba can adapt to its surroundings but i don't see it being 'creative'.
My computer can draw graphics autonomously (without me telling it what to do) and yet it never showed any creativity (unless you mean the artifacts from overheating )

Indeed creativity is not necessary for autonomy.  My bad.  Yet it is usefull.  And humans use it, so if machines are to do as good a job as humans, they might need to use it too.

[Crypt_Current]

But wait... What do we mean when we say endowed with consciousness?  Do we mean merely self-aware, or also emotionally aware of other living things?
The latter is what I am calling for.

lol... Yeah, Pipe dream. Take another hit, man, 'cause that is never happening. Even assuming machines could develop consciousness, it would be an entirely alien consciousness that, at best, viewed us as ants. At worst, well... You've seen the Terminator movies, right?

Terminator 2 is one of my favorite movies of all time.

And yet, you still desire AI...

If you're suicidal, there are hotlines for that. And there's no need to take the rest of us with you.

Art imitates life and vice versa, but they do not dictate each other.  But you knew that already.  Hopefully.

[Crypt_Current]

As far as I can tell, I'm the only consciousness in existence, and "everything else" is just a product of my imagination in my little universe.

That paradigm is solipsism, and is not logically cogent.

[mobodick]

If you want real emotion you would need to evolve it and so you would have to present the same kind of environment to the developing mechanism to make it develop these qualia we call emotions.

This doesn't make any sense. Are you proposing that qualia are transcendental?

I'm not sure what you mean by transcendental.
To clarify my statement, i think anything we think of as conciousness or intelligence is the result of specific information flows in a structure.
Anything you feel in an emotional sense is specific to humans. I would not expect most life to experience emotion because most of life does not have a brain to feel emotion (or experience conciousness for that matter). Mammals propably do feel some sort of emotion but it would not be a very human-like mix of emotion and there would propably be a lot less control over these emotions and a lot less reasoning.

[Crypt_Current]

Nonsense.
An amoeba can adapt to its surroundings but i don't see it being 'creative'.
My computer can draw graphics autonomously (without me telling it what to do) and yet it never showed any creativity (unless you mean the artifacts from overheating )

Indeed creativity is not necessary for autonomy.  My bad.  Yet it is usefull.  And humans use it, so if machines are to do as good a job as humans, they might need to use it too.

No, you were probably correct in the first place.  The amoeba was amazingly creative in that it did things that up until that point had never been done.  Not creative by our elite human standards.

[blablahblah]

....
Well, for the purposes of a central authority to run 'our' lives, why toy around with machines that are far simpler than humans? Why not use the best there is, i.e.: actual humans? Some might argue that it's a complex, rewarding job.

Here's a hint.
The original problem was that we humans do a bad job.

Sounds like a pessimistic judgement call to me.

Then why on earth would you want the replacement to act like a human?

Because I don't want a replacement! It's those pot-smoking hippies with adulterated imaginations and scant real-world experience with computers who think that machines can be magically programmed to be wise or to talk in a sexy soothing Nigella Lawson voice.

It's a stupid projection of an ideal human onto a machine.
It's a crucial mistake to think that a better intelligence lies along the same lines as human intelligence.
But it is an easy mistake to make because human intelligence seems like the best kind of intelligence we know of.

These computers, which some people are in awe of, are merely an extension of human intelligence. The algorithms may sometimes give surprising results, but that's irrelevant. Oh well, programmers are generally pretty smart people. Maybe they should be in charge?

[Crypt_Current]

If you want real emotion you would need to evolve it and so you would have to present the same kind of environment to the developing mechanism to make it develop these qualia we call emotions.

This doesn't make any sense. Are you proposing that qualia are transcendental?

I'm not sure what you mean by transcendental.
To clarify my statement, i think anything we think of as conciousness or intelligence is the result of specific information flows in a structure.
Anything you feel in an emotional sense is specific to humans. I would not expect most life to experience emotion because most of life does not have a brain to feel emotion (or experience conciousness for that matter). Mammals propably do feel some sort of emotion but it would not be a very human-like mix of emotion and there would propably be a lot less control over these emotions and a lot less reasoning.

I agree with you on consciousness and intelligence being emergent from basic physical properties.  When it comes to emotion, I believe the same reductionist approach, but it has to do with linguistics:  Humans are different from all other species because of our ability to codify information into symbols.  A hypothesis of mine is that abstractions from generations upon generations living with this ability have resulted in the emergence and evolution of emotions.

[myrkul]

Art imitates life and vice versa, but they do not dictate each other.  But you knew that already.  Hopefully.

I think you miss the point of Science fiction. It is to warn of, display the possibilities of, and sometimes create, the future. Take the Terminator movies as the warnings they are.

[mobodick]

If you want real emotion you would need to evolve it and so you would have to present the same kind of environment to the developing mechanism to make it develop these qualia we call emotions.

This doesn't make any sense. Are you proposing that qualia are transcendental?

He's saying (and I agree) that a programmed simulation is not the same thing as a true emotion.

It's kindof what i'm saying.
I'm not saying that a programmed simulation cannot do it in principle because i think it can.
What i'm saying is that it's a futile excersize because the easiest way to get human intelligence is to just use a human brain. A simulation like we are capable of running would not be sufficient to account for all dynamics in the brain. You will have to consider stuff like quantum mechanics that are simply available systems for exploitation by evolution.

I'm saying that you cannot define emotion by simply programming it as a chain of abstractions of the physical dynamics.
It proves to be too specific to capture in an algorithm.
You can generalize stuff, but in evolution details are just as important as the general structures.
Every single of the trillions of cells in a human body contain the whole DNA sequence. They all use bits of that code to interact with their environment. It's a mind-bogglingly specific system.
That is why people try to grow complexity nowadays, instead of designing it. It turns out evolution is pretty efficient at this process despite its seeming inefficiency of exploring a possibility space.

[Crypt_Current]

Art imitates life and vice versa, but they do not dictate each other.  But you knew that already.  Hopefully.

I think you miss the point of Science fiction. It is to warn of, display the possibilities of, and sometimes create, the future. Take the Terminator movies as the warnings they are.

I'll take the warning thusly:  Let's make sure our inevitable creations are created correctly.

[myrkul]

That is why people try to grow complexity nowadays, instead of designing it. It turns out evolution is pretty efficient at this process despite its seeming inefficiency of exploring a possibility space.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/slime-mold-grows-network-just-like-tokyo-rail-system/

[mobodick]

Nonsense.
An amoeba can adapt to its surroundings but i don't see it being 'creative'.
My computer can draw graphics autonomously (without me telling it what to do) and yet it never showed any creativity (unless you mean the artifacts from overheating )

Indeed creativity is not necessary for autonomy.  My bad.  Yet it is usefull.  And humans use it, so if machines are to do as good a job as humans, they might need to use it too.

No, you were probably correct in the first place.  The amoeba was amazingly creative in that it did things that up until that point had never been done.  Not creative by our elite human standards.

Nope.
Creativity implies intention.
I can assure you DNA molecules don't have intentions.
Intentions are a result of brains and so cannot precede them.
Amoeba simply did what their genes were programmed to do with a healthy dose of randomness and those things they did turned out to make them better at survival and thereby making more of the genes that happen to survive etc.

[Crypt_Current]

Nonsense.
An amoeba can adapt to its surroundings but i don't see it being 'creative'.
My computer can draw graphics autonomously (without me telling it what to do) and yet it never showed any creativity (unless you mean the artifacts from overheating )

Indeed creativity is not necessary for autonomy.  My bad.  Yet it is usefull.  And humans use it, so if machines are to do as good a job as humans, they might need to use it too.

No, you were probably correct in the first place.  The amoeba was amazingly creative in that it did things that up until that point had never been done.  Not creative by our elite human standards.

Nope.
Creativity implies intention.
I can assure you DNA molecules don't have intentions.
Intentions are a result of brains and so cannot precede them.
Amoeba simply did what their genes were programmed to do with a healthy dose of randomness and those things they did turned out to make them better at survival and thereby making more of the genes that happen to survive etc.

Creativity, like all other abstract concepts that have no specific physical entity that they point to and predates them, is a human creation.