A Resource Based Economy

[Crypt_Current]

Creativity ~= unpredictability.

The last thing we need is a "creative" computer system running the world.

I don't fully agree with that definition, but going with it for argument's sake:
Predictable or not (assuming we mean "predictable" here as "predictable by humans" [arrogant IMO]), if the ruling class (in this case sentient machines) is actually smarter, more powerful, and more able to rule the world than humans, than humans simply have no say anymore.  It would not matter if the ruling computer system came to the (much processed) conclusion that humanity should be eradicated -- it would be a good and correct decision, because the smartest most powerful class of intelligence in existence has deemed it so.

So it also doesn't matter to a wolf when humans decide that a wolf-less world is better for them?

You're asuming humans are more inteligent than wolves, but that is not true.

Heh,. maybe not, but we can be intelligent in way more ways!
That is what makes human brains different from other mammals brains.

There is only one right way, and it's quite certain that ones who know way more ways will distract themselves with wrong ones.

You obviously haven't solved many practical problems...

Random trivial problems are just that.  But we are talking about the ultimate problem of the universe's existence, something along the lines of ultimate purpose.  And there may be many purposes for the universe's existence along the way, but ultimately when infinity is actualized, it will only happen that once and in one way, and this way will necessarily be correct.

[1713446433]

1713446433

[1713446433]

1713446433

[1713446433]

1713446433

[1713446433]

1713446433

[1713446433]

1713446433

[myrkul]

But we are talking about the ultimate problem of the universe's existence, something along the lines of ultimate purpose.  And there may be many purposes for the universe's existence along the way, but ultimately when infinity is actualized, it will only happen that once and in one way, and this way will necessarily be correct.

You live in Colorado, don't you?

[Crypt_Current]

Creativity ~= unpredictability.

The last thing we need is a "creative" computer system running the world.

I don't fully agree with that definition, but going with it for argument's sake:
Predictable or not (assuming we mean "predictable" here as "predictable by humans" [arrogant IMO]), if the ruling class (in this case sentient machines) is actually smarter, more powerful, and more able to rule the world than humans, than humans simply have no say anymore.  It would not matter if the ruling computer system came to the (much processed) conclusion that humanity should be eradicated -- it would be a good and correct decision, because the smartest most powerful class of intelligence in existence has deemed it so.

So it also doesn't matter to a wolf when humans decide that a wolf-less world is better for them?
And that justifies the humans killing all the wolfs? Because, you know, they are more intelligent?
Great way forward!
 

You make the error of thinking that something that exceeds humans evolutionary development would not be selfish.
You also make the error of thinking that having a human-like intelligence regulating society is optimal.

I don't think we need a human-like AI at all but if you insist you still have a problem in that it will have its own ideas of what is good or bad that don't stroke well with what humans think is good or bad. That is what human-like intelligence is all about.

I don't recall making the errors you listed, and I would be happy to re-examine that if you could point me toward them
We as humans eradicate pests all the time.  We have deemed wolves as non pests.  I think a higher form of life might deem us similarly.

[Crypt_Current]

But we are talking about the ultimate problem of the universe's existence, something along the lines of ultimate purpose.  And there may be many purposes for the universe's existence along the way, but ultimately when infinity is actualized, it will only happen that once and in one way, and this way will necessarily be correct.

You live in Colorado, don't you?

You have an obsession with marijuana culture, don't you?

But no, I don't.

[myrkul]

But we are talking about the ultimate problem of the universe's existence, something along the lines of ultimate purpose.  And there may be many purposes for the universe's existence along the way, but ultimately when infinity is actualized, it will only happen that once and in one way, and this way will necessarily be correct.

You live in Colorado, don't you?

You have an obsession with marijuana culture, don't you?

No, but I recognize the ramblings of a stoned-stupid mind.

[Crypt_Current]

But we are talking about the ultimate problem of the universe's existence, something along the lines of ultimate purpose.  And there may be many purposes for the universe's existence along the way, but ultimately when infinity is actualized, it will only happen that once and in one way, and this way will necessarily be correct.

You live in Colorado, don't you?

You have an obsession with marijuana culture, don't you?

No, but I recognize the ramblings of a stoned-stupid mind.

How so?

[myrkul]

[How so?

I've heard stuff like this before, from people baked out of their minds:

But we are talking about the ultimate problem of the universe's existence, something along the lines of ultimate purpose.  And there may be many purposes for the universe's existence along the way, but ultimately when infinity is actualized, it will only happen that once and in one way, and this way will necessarily be correct.

That is how I recognize it.

[mobodick]

Creativity ~= unpredictability.

The last thing we need is a "creative" computer system running the world.

I don't fully agree with that definition, but going with it for argument's sake:
Predictable or not (assuming we mean "predictable" here as "predictable by humans" [arrogant IMO]), if the ruling class (in this case sentient machines) is actually smarter, more powerful, and more able to rule the world than humans, than humans simply have no say anymore.  It would not matter if the ruling computer system came to the (much processed) conclusion that humanity should be eradicated -- it would be a good and correct decision, because the smartest most powerful class of intelligence in existence has deemed it so.

So it also doesn't matter to a wolf when humans decide that a wolf-less world is better for them?

You're asuming humans are more inteligent than wolves, but that is not true.

Heh,. maybe not, but we can be intelligent in way more ways!
That is what makes human brains different from other mammals brains.

There is only one right way, and it's quite certain that ones who know way more ways will distract themselves with wrong ones.

You obviously haven't solved many practical problems...

Random trivial problems are just that.  But we are talking about the ultimate problem of the universe's existence, something along the lines of ultimate purpose.  And there may be many purposes for the universe's existence along the way, but ultimately when infinity is actualized, it will only happen that once and in one way, and this way will necessarily be correct.

The universe has no problems with existing.
Finding a purpose is something invented by humans for humans.
And if there are, as you say, many purposes for the universes existance then we would not know anything about it. Considering it from our perspective is simply ridiculous.

Purpose implies intention so i'm eager to know what it is inside (or outside) the universe that has these intentions of reaching a goal. I want to bet these things are your own searches for goals and purpose that you project on the universe as a whole. Don't worry tho, that's a human trait.

We haven't got a clue whether infinity exists and even then calling the outcome correct is silly as since it is the only outcome there is nothing to compare it to.
Correct according to itself?
Something can only be called correct in context.

[Crypt_Current]

Do you think maybe ZGers or Omega Point Theorists smoke too much pot?    

[myrkul]

Do you think maybe ZGers or Omega Point Theorists smoke too much pot?    

I wouldn't rule it out.

[mobodick]

Creativity ~= unpredictability.

The last thing we need is a "creative" computer system running the world.

I don't fully agree with that definition, but going with it for argument's sake:
Predictable or not (assuming we mean "predictable" here as "predictable by humans" [arrogant IMO]), if the ruling class (in this case sentient machines) is actually smarter, more powerful, and more able to rule the world than humans, than humans simply have no say anymore.  It would not matter if the ruling computer system came to the (much processed) conclusion that humanity should be eradicated -- it would be a good and correct decision, because the smartest most powerful class of intelligence in existence has deemed it so.

So it also doesn't matter to a wolf when humans decide that a wolf-less world is better for them?
And that justifies the humans killing all the wolfs? Because, you know, they are more intelligent?
Great way forward!
 

You make the error of thinking that something that exceeds humans evolutionary development would not be selfish.
You also make the error of thinking that having a human-like intelligence regulating society is optimal.

I don't think we need a human-like AI at all but if you insist you still have a problem in that it will have its own ideas of what is good or bad that don't stroke well with what humans think is good or bad. That is what human-like intelligence is all about.

I don't recall making the errors you listed, and I would be happy to re-examine that if you could point me toward them
We as humans eradicate pests all the time.  We have deemed wolves as non pests.  I think a higher form of life might deem us similarly.

Well, let me remind you :
"It would not matter if the ruling computer system came to the (much processed) conclusion that humanity should be eradicated -- it would be a good and correct decision, because the smartest most powerful class of intelligence in existence has deemed it so."

First error is assuming that what this ruling class of most powerfull intelligence tells you is good (for them) is also good for you.
In reality these kinds of questions cannot be generalized.
I could now again ask if you think it is good or correct to the wolf that humans found it good to kill them off.

Second of all, you seem to imply that these super duper ultra intelligent AIs would be better at regulating society than something with less intelligence.
This is not true. Regulating a process requires only enough 'intelligence' to regulate the process. No need for systems that start to think for themselfs.

The assumption that higher/better intelligence is the way to achieve a well balanced human society is simply false. Actually we don't need these AIs at all because we could allready play nice and divide the resources if we wanted. But humans don't like to play nice an the AI thing is just an excuse to make people listen because, you know,allmighty computers says no. It's a bullshit excuse for the fact that society needs structure as we already have the answer. We need to consume less as a species or we will break everything. That is the simple truth that is hidden by RBE stuff.
The real problem, and why i think RBE is complete bullshit, is how to get people to listen to someone (or something) telling them they need to change their behaviour because that is more efficient.
Or, and i just like to repeat it, how will you get Putin to give up his resources?

[Crypt_Current]

The assumption that higher/better intelligence is the way to achieve a well balanced human society is simply false. Actually we don't need these AIs at all because we could already play nice and divide the resources. But humans don't like to play nice an the AI thing is just an excuse to make people listen because, you know,allmighty computers says no. It's a bullshit excuse for the fact that society needs structure as we already have the answer. We need to consume less as a species or we will break everything. That is the simple truth that is hidden by RBE stuff.

Thank you.  Agreed.  People DO need to consume WAY less.  I personally live on less than $5000 / year.
We have successfully completely debunked the RBE paradigm and pulled the rug out from under ZG's feet.

The real problem, and why i think RBE is complete bullshit, is how to get people to listen to someone (or something) telling them they need to change their behaviour because that is more efficient.
Or, and i just like to repeat it, how will you get Putin to give up his resources?

Psyops combined with making sure your technology is as current as theirs?

[myrkul]

Psyops combined with making sure your technology is as current as theirs?

So... you'd steal it?

[Crypt_Current]

Psyops combined with making sure your technology is as current as theirs?

So... you'd steal it?

No.  They will give it up.

[ElectricMucus]

Psyops combined with making sure your technology is as current as theirs?

So... you'd steal it?

Actually that would be defrauding it.

[mobodick]

The assumption that higher/better intelligence is the way to achieve a well balanced human society is simply false. Actually we don't need these AIs at all because we could already play nice and divide the resources. But humans don't like to play nice an the AI thing is just an excuse to make people listen because, you know,allmighty computers says no. It's a bullshit excuse for the fact that society needs structure as we already have the answer. We need to consume less as a species or we will break everything. That is the simple truth that is hidden by RBE stuff.

Thank you.  Agreed.  People DO need to consume WAY less.  I personally live on less than $5000 / year.
We have successfully completely debunked the RBE paradigm and pulled the rug out from under ZG's feet.

The real problem, and why i think RBE is complete bullshit, is how to get people to listen to someone (or something) telling them they need to change their behaviour because that is more efficient.
Or, and i just like to repeat it, how will you get Putin to give up his resources?

Psyops combined with making sure your technology is as current as theirs?

Hehe.,
But it's not about technology at all, it's about the fact that they are willing to protect their resources with their lifes. As i said, a social problem that can only be solved with subduction, in whatever way. You know the drill, agression, propaganda, genetic selection... The usual methods of getting yer things done.
So in some ways i would even go as far as saying RMB requires some form of fascism to become reality.
It needs a way to coerce people into cooperation otherwise people just won't cooperate.

But i think that the bigger this consumption problem becomes the more people will be willing to change.
The change just won't be RBE but something that more naturally fits our way of living and won't have the same dramatic consequences that a change to RBE would have.

[myrkul]

But i think that the bigger this consumption problem becomes the more people will be willing to change.
The change just won't be RBE but something that more naturally fits our way of living and won't have the same dramatic consequences that a change to RBE would have.

Market economy. Once people start paying the REAL price of things, that should take care of it.

[mobodick]

But i think that the bigger this consumption problem becomes the more people will be willing to change.
The change just won't be RBE but something that more naturally fits our way of living and won't have the same dramatic consequences that a change to RBE would have.

Market economy. Once people start paying the REAL price of things, that should take care of it.

I think if you let the market play out from supply to demand you would already be too late.
It would be a brutal transaction.
One of the problems is that it is indeed the future generations that will be presented with the bill if you play it through the market.

[molecular]

But i think that the bigger this consumption problem becomes the more people will be willing to change.
The change just won't be RBE but something that more naturally fits our way of living and won't have the same dramatic consequences that a change to RBE would have.

Market economy. Once people start paying the REAL price of things, that should take care of it.

yes, exactly. and sound money.

[myrkul]

But i think that the bigger this consumption problem becomes the more people will be willing to change.
The change just won't be RBE but something that more naturally fits our way of living and won't have the same dramatic consequences that a change to RBE would have.

Market economy. Once people start paying the REAL price of things, that should take care of it.

I think if you let the market play out from supply to demand you would already be too late.
It would be a brutal transaction.
One of the problems is that it is indeed the future generations that will be presented with the bill if you play it through the market.

The future generations are already being presented with the bill. Any delay in beginning to pay it only raises the eventual cost.

It's already too late no matter what we do.