A Resource Based Economy

[4v4l0n42]

And, please, before posting another "I didn't read anything, but I think TZM said that, therefore you are a bunch of communist technocratic lunatics", take the time to review the material.  

[1714027742]

1714027742

[1714027742]

1714027742

[1714027742]

1714027742

[1714027742]

1714027742

[1714027742]

1714027742

[4v4l0n42]

FYI, talking about action:

TZM is the number one team in the world for the BOINC project on quantum computing:
http://statsbzh.boinc-af.org/listteams.php?&project_id=aquaathome&hl=1&startidx=0#1

By participating in this project, we also get to:

• Show the world the collaborative power of the movement
• Contribute to advancing scientific research
• Accelerate research in Quantum Computing and help revolutionize computer science
• Trigger curiosity about the movement among the research community
• Be recognized by the media and the research community, as a ready-to-help positive organization
• Build a good relationship with the scientists at the company behind this project, who have the technological knowledge to help us build a central computer for RBE city systems

Just sayin' 

[anderxander]

Open Source Ecology is a perfect example of the application of what TZM proposes, on a very specific topic.

The overall argument is that instead of comparing who is doing more or less, and in which field, it's the recognition of what is most important and the direction to follow. There are many institutions that are doing excellent work on the same direction: The Singularity University, the XPrize, Open Source Ecology, The RepRap project... instead of saying "Hey, those guys are better", or "those guys have done more than those other guys", we should happy that more and more groups of people are waking up to this direction.

Remember, cooperation is what matters most. It is of little or no importance what label you give: TZM, OSE, SU, whatever the name, it's the idea that counts.

Cooperation is what matters most? So you give the name of a project who's title has "Revolution through competition" in it?

The RepRap Project is apart of Open Source Ecology's Global Village Construction Set already....

You say that TZM is a completely separate thing from the Venus Project, yet the movement claims to be the activist wing of the Venus project.

I didn't say one is better than the other. The point is one is pragmatic and practical and the other is offering a false sense that some real alternative is being proposed, except in terms so abstract and divorced from reality as to be virtually meaningless.

You talk a lot about science and the scientific method yet  as far as I can tell, the people in TZM aren’t actually doing any science.  They aren’t forming hypotheses, designing experiments, collecting data and forming conclusions.  There’s no list of open questions and proposed experiments.  The movement is just assertion piled on top of assertion.

If AI is going to help us better make decisions, why you have some software that I can download that will help me make better decisions?   Seriously.  If they don’t have software that will help one person make better decisions,why would I believe that computers can run a city or a planet?

If you people really believe a city can be built without money, then lack of funding cannot be an excuse for not having already started these cities.

I am not convinced that TZM and TVP are separate. They are only separate in their roles but they believe the same thing.

People who do technical work (OSE, VertiFarm, Earthship, DIYers, Permaculturists, etc) don’t look down on society and say it needs to be redesigned, they improve it bit by bit.

So no I don't agree that we should "just be happy" people are picking up trendy words and slapping them on their projects without any critical thinking and analysis of what is truly being presented.

FYI, talking about action:

TZM is the number one team in the world for the BOINC project on quantum computing:
http://statsbzh.boinc-af.org/listteams.php?&project_id=aquaathome&hl=1&startidx=0#1

By participating in this project, we also get to:

• Show the world the collaborative power of the movement
• Contribute to advancing scientific research
• Accelerate research in Quantum Computing and help revolutionize computer science
• Trigger curiosity about the movement among the research community
• Be recognized by the media and the research community, as a ready-to-help positive organization
• Build a good relationship with the scientists at the company behind this project, who have the technological knowledge to help us build a central computer for RBE city systems

Just sayin'  

 What if TZM was the largest supporter of OSE?

Social organization is an empirical problem.  You try different things and you see what works.  Alternatively, you look at existing communities.
  
ZM treats social organization as a theoretical problem.  JF spent the last 30 years designing a system, now PJ is telling everybody how great it is.  Nobody is doing experiments, nobody is collecting data.
The ZM approach is top-down and doesn’t accomodate this.  The open-source approach is bottom-up and does.  


Let me make it clear that I am not criticizing the vision of a society without money.  Yes, of course, we come in peace, we share many of the same values. I’m criticizing the lack of tangible progress.  There are many open source success stories: Linux, Wikipedia, RepRap, Arduino, Life-Trac, Liberator CEB press, etc.  The Venus Project and TZM has accomplished… what?

Some point out that a project the size of a city takes a while to get going.  Yes, of course, but that’s not a feature, it’s a bug.  The vision is too grandiose, too top-down.  Better to work from the bottom up.  Walk before you run.  Build a village before you build a city.  Build a house before you build a village.  Try different things, make mistakes, learn from them.

The more you post, the more you just prove that you're a blind follower.

Why not point me to a TZM video by someone other than Peter Joseph?  Or maybe you could describe a few areas where TZM people disagree with each other.  Better yet, tell us where YOU think Peter Joseph is wrong about something, instead of just jerking off to his ideas?

[anderxander]

Open Source Ecology is a perfect example of the application of what TZM proposes, on a very specific topic.

That's my point. It actually boils the ideas down and puts them into practice.

[4v4l0n42]

Cooperation is what matters most? So you give the name of a project who's title has "Revolution through competition" in it?

The XPrize is a perfect example of what a team of professionals can accomplish, but it has its limits. That's why we need a social direction as well, because otherwise good projects will remain in the profit motive mentality, with all its drawbacks.

You say that TZM is a completely separate thing from the Venus Project, yet the movement claims to be the activist wing of the Venus project.

That is incorrect. It did at the beginning, now we finally moved on and separated.

You talk a lot about science and the scientific method yet  as far as I can tell, the people in TZM aren’t actually doing any science.  They aren’t forming hypotheses, designing experiments, collecting data and forming conclusions.  There’s no list of open questions and proposed experiments.  The movement is just assertion piled on top of assertion.

That is incorrect as well.

We have working teams, one of which is Technology, coordinated by a Space Shuttle Systems Engineer working for NASA, who is working on a prototype of efficient Hydroponic system, to be released as Open Source project once it's completed.

In the Italian chapter, our technology team is currently working on three projects: portable aquaponics for homes, inexpensive water purification system for poor families in third world countries and portable electric generators, all Open Source.

If AI is going to help us better make decisions, why you have some software that I can download that will help me make better decisions?   Seriously.  If they don’t have software that will help one person make better decisions,why would I believe that computers can run a city or a planet?

As I said, we are still in our infancy, so it will take time. However, these programs are already in use by the military and the CIA, if the world was more peaceful they could release the source for everyone to benefit from.

Again, culture and peace, you see?

I am not convinced that TZM and TVP are separate. They are only separate in their roles but they believe the same thing.

Believe what you like, we are very separate, both in theoretical and in practical terms.

People who do technical work (OSE, VertiFarm, Earthship, DIYers, Permaculturists, etc) don’t look down on society and say it needs to be redesigned, they improve it bit by bit.
[...]
The ZM approach is top-down and doesn’t accomodate this.  The open-source approach is bottom-up and does.

That is the first actual based criticism that you offered, and it's the same I gave to the movement before joining in. Then I decided to change the movement and bring that idea inside.

There are many open source success stories: Linux, Wikipedia, RepRap, Arduino, Life-Trac, Liberator CEB press, etc.

TZM recognises all those amazing projects and sees the potential of applying that approach globally.

Some point out that a project the size of a city takes a while to get going.  Yes, of course, but that’s not a feature, it’s a bug.  The vision is too grandiose, too top-down.  Better to work from the bottom up.  Walk before you run.  Build a village before you build a city.  Build a house before you build a village.  Try different things, make mistakes, learn from them.

The more you post, the more you just prove that you're a blind follower.

You could not be more wrong. I am actually the first critic of TZM, but instead of just complaining and bitching about it I actually work to improve it.

Why not point me to a TZM video by someone other than Peter Joseph?

Sure, easiest thing in the world.
http://vimeo.com/user3541570/videos

FYI, I like Ben McLeish's videos better.

And here's a talk I gave at a symposium a few months ago, with English subs:
http://www.federicopistono.org/blog/the-zeitgeist-movement-symposium-with-federico-pistono

Or maybe you could describe a few areas where TZM people disagree with each other.  Better yet, tell us where YOU think Peter Joseph is wrong about something, instead of just jerking off to his ideas?

LOL.

As an example, I noticed that Peter wasn't much into OSS and the like. Instead of jerking off to his ignorance, I introduced him to the ideas of FOSS, Creative Commons and everything else. As a result, he integrated them into his view and researched the material. He even put the RepRap project on his latest work: Zeitgeist Moving Forward, along with releasing a lot of material under CC-BY-NC-SA.

So, that was one thing, and it was cleared up pretty easily. Now I'm trying to make him understand that we need to work on the documents collaboratively, in a wikipedia style approach, with guidelines decided upon by the community using rational consensus, instead of what's happening now.

As you can see, I have a working mind and I don't blindly accept whatever comes out of his mouth.

Maybe you had bad experiences with someone else, but please don't project them to everyone without considering what they are actually saying.

[4v4l0n42]

Regarding automation, here's an excellent article recently published by Daniel Lemire.
http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2011/05/27/automation-will-make-your-job-obsolete-no-matter-who-you-are/

I was part of the first generation of kids to receive computers as gifts. I was also part of the first generation of professionals to adopt computer-assisted tele-work: I can work from my bedroom just as efficiently as from my campus office. I routinely organize and attend meetings while I am at random locations. This week-end, my 7 year-old son  repaired our vacuum-cleaning robot by taking it apart on the kitchen floor:  the contacts with the battery were dirty. Meanwhile, I was on the kitchen table building a solar-powered robot.

Computers can already be superior to human beings on most specialized tasks:

• Researchers have recently found that a computer persona could more engaging socially than a bona fide human being. This person you are chatting with on Facebook or Twitter, are you sure it is a human being? Maybe you are dealing with a robot, and that is why this person is so responsive and systematically friendly. I suspect that most software is asocial simply because we did not bother to implement sociability.
• Computers can beat any human being at chess and checker. In fact, you could play 1 million games of checker against a computer, and we know you would never win, not once. How do computers beat you? Not through logic alone. They rely on an extensive database: that is, they have experience, more experience than any human being. Computers show creativity and good judgment when playing these games.
• A tool like Google Mail sorts my mail automatically for me, and archives it nicely. This used to require a human being making judgement calls about what mail was junk, what mail was high priority, and so on. Yet it has been nicely automated.
  Alas our technology is critically limited: we are unable to give computers general intelligence. Does it matter as far as automation is concerned? I believe that general intelligence is overrated in the workplace.

For example, can computers without general intelligence replace managers and accountants? Consider Walmart. We often think of Walmart as a discount store, but it is also the direct result of the largest and most ambitious business automation project ever. Walmart is not killing its competitors just by offering poor wages: it is killing them because it has automated much of the supply and accounting management.

Could computers replace teachers? Khan Academy shows that the lecture component has already been replaced. What about grading? In the software industry, we already use on a large scale automated testing: to determine whether a candidate can program in Java, he is asked to fill out an online questionnaire. Employers rely on these tests more than on college grades. The only reason college professors still grade Calculus and programming assignments by hand is that they lack the incentive to automate it. But have no fear: for-profit colleges are already hard at work automating everything. Would students prefer to have a “personal touch”? I don’t think so: I believe students would rather have quick and detailed automated  feedback than wait for a tired professor to scribble a few notes in the margin of their assignment. (And let us be honest: most marking is done by underpaid teaching assistants who don’t care that much).

In fact, most jobs require little general intelligence:

Jobs are highly specialized. You can sum up 80% of what most people do with 4 or 5 different specific tasks. In most organizations, it is a major faux pas to ask the wrong person: there is a one-to-one matching between people and tasks.
Jobs don’t require that you to understand much of what is going on. You only need to fake some understanding of the context the same way a spam filter fakes an understanding of your emails. Do you think that the salesman at the appliance store knows why some dishwashers have a shredder and some don’t, and why it matters? Do you think that the professors know what the job market is like for their graduates?
Nevertheless, some believe their job cannot be automated. Most of them are wrong.

For example… Surely, we won’t replace politicians by robots? We may not replace them, but they will become obsolete anyhow. I believe that computers enable a different from of government altogether where we have little need for politicians. In most of the western world, we use representative democracy, with local politicians being elected and sent to a central government, where they form the ruling class. Yet with an entire population having Internet access, we don’t need politicians to represent the people, people can speak for themselves. Most politicians are already more or less powerless since nobody really believe they represent their people. You think that government without professional politicians would be chaos? I am sure there are people who think that without newspapers, individuals cannot be informed.

To a large extend, whether you are a  lawyer, a medical doctor, a professor or a politician, you already are obsolete. We are just waiting for someone to write the software that will replace you. You replacement won’t pass the Turing test, but nobody will care.

[Findeton]

Computers can already be superior to human beings on most specialized tasks:

• Researchers have recently found that a computer persona could more engaging socially than a bona fide human being. This person you are chatting with on Facebook or Twitter, are you sure it is a human being? Maybe you are dealing with a robot, and that is why this person is so responsive and systematically friendly. I suspect that most software is asocial simply because we did not bother to implement sociability.

No computer program has passed the turing test yet. This point is invalid.

• Computers can beat any human being at chess and checker. In fact, you could play 1 million games of checker against a computer, and we know you would never win, not once. How do computers beat you? Not through logic alone. They rely on an extensive database: that is, they have experience, more experience than any human being. Computers show creativity and good judgment when playing these games.

Sure they can beat us on chess. ON CHESS, it's a specific mind game with very specific rules. World, however has no specific rules.

For example, can computers without general intelligence replace managers and accountants? Consider Walmart.

No, there'll always be people controlling machines. And if you make everything "automatic", the guys in charge will be those who code the software. Like in a dictatorship.

Could computers replace teachers?

No

To a large extend, whether you are a  lawyer, a medical doctor, a professor or a politician, you already are obsolete. We are just waiting for someone to write the software that will replace you. You replacement won’t pass the Turing test, but nobody will care.

This paragraph shows stupidity of zeitgeist sect members.[/list]

[jtimon]

Sure they can beat us on chess. ON CHESS, it's a specific mind game with very specific rules. World, however has no specific rules.

Yes, even in a deterministic board game with very simple rules they fail against the worse pro.
This game is Go.

"...the best Go programs only manage to reach an intermediate amateur level."

[4v4l0n42]

No computer program has passed the turing test yet. This point is invalid.

You completely missed the point. General purpose intelligence is treated as an unachievable myth, and it's completely unnecessary for the sake of the argument. You don't need an AI that can do "everything", but several AIs that can do "anything", very specific tasks, as it already happens now in some areas.

No, there'll always be people controlling machines. And if you make everything "automatic", the guys in charge will be those who code the software. Like in a dictatorship.

Again, missed the point. AIs will help us arrive at better decisions, not take control and do their own.

Look, it's pretty damn simple, why do you keep projecting things that nobody has said? You make up sentences that nobody wrote, and then you disagree with them. WTF?

This paragraph shows stupidity of zeitgeist sect members.[/list]

First, Daniel Lemire is not a zeitgeist member. He is a professor at LICEF Research Center, Pavillon Saint-Urbain, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), specialised in Data Warehousing and OLAP, Recommender Systems and Collaborative Filtering, Information Retrieval. He has nothing to do with TZM, I just quoted an article he wrote that was relevant to the discussion.

Second, just calling someone stupid and "member of a sect" just proves that you either can't argue or don't want to argue. If you really think that paragraph is invalid, elaborate.

[4v4l0n42]

Yes, even in a deterministic board game with very simple rules they fail against the worse pro.
This game is Go.

"...the best Go programs only manage to reach an intermediate amateur level."

That is completely irrelevant, as it is a question of complexity, not computability. (If you don't know what that is, go and study http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computability/)

For go, it's just a matter of time, and not even that much.

And even if that wasn't the case, it doesn't change the overall argument.

[jtimon]

Yes, even in a deterministic board game with very simple rules they fail against the worse pro.
This game is Go.

"...the best Go programs only manage to reach an intermediate amateur level."

That is completely irrelevant, as it is a question of complexity, not computability. (If you don't know what that is, go and study http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computability/)

For go, it's just a matter of time, and not even that much.

And even if that wasn't the case, it doesn't change the overall argument.

Yes. The fact that Go programs are worse than humans is completely irrelevant in any political/economical discussion. So it is that Chess programs are better than humans.

I know what complexity and computability are. And the Go is as complex than chess, just the size of the problem is bigger. So even if both problems are computable, the difference between them is in computability and not in complexity: the opposite of what you have said.

I think that waiting for better hardware is not the way to go to implement a computer go that beats the world Go champion: we need different algorithms. Current developments use monte-carlo algorithms but I'd bet for neural networks trained through genetic algorithms.
I think that waiting for better technology is not the way to go to implement a political/economical system that preserves nature and justice.

I don't understand why you call for awareness if everything is going to be great thanks to AI's cornucopia.
By the way, what TZM says about peak oil?

[4v4l0n42]

I know what complexity and computability are. And the Go is as complex than chess, just the size of the problem is bigger. So even if both problems are computable, the difference between them is in computability and not in complexity: the opposite of what you have said.

Well, no. This proves you have not studied anything, and you do not know what you are talking about.

Computability tells you if a problem is solvable at all. Complexity tell you how much time will it require to solve it in Big O notation.

For example, here's a table of the complexities of some well-known games and here's go's complexity.

I think that waiting for better technology is not the way to go to implement a political/economical system that preserves nature and justice.

I agree, that is why we should not wait for better technology, but utilise the one that we already have at its full potential instead. When our hardware and our software will improve, so will our society, if there is a connection between the two. if not, we will just have smarter and faster computers, with dumber and dumber politicians making idiotic decisions.

I don't understand why you call for awareness if everything is going to be great thanks to AI's cornucopia.

Because it will not. I'm starting to think there is a fundamental problem of understanding a communication: have you even read my previous posts and TZM material, to make such assertions? It seems that you superficially flicked through what other people say about TZM, but that you have not actually researched anything.

TZM does not advocate using super powerful and improbable futuristic general purpose AI to solve all of our problems. That's what you think it does, and then you disagree with what you have just say. See Dilbert comic above. You did it again.

TZM simply proposes to utilise the scientific method, what we use to make anything work well in this society, also to the social design itself, with a systems approach.

That means, for example, that if a proposal of a new transportation system is to be put in place, rather than asking: "how much money will it cost?" or "will this benefit our financiers and stockholders", or "will this get me elected again next term", we should be asking other questions, such as "What kind of material does it use? Is it more or less efficient than the previous technology? What is the environmental impact? What are the health risks for the population? Is it really necessary, or rather will it have a detrimental effect of the local community? Will this actually improve the standard of living of the people, or does it just make the economy grow, irrespective of what people really need?" and so on.

That is the basic idea. I don't understand why you keep pushing this "communism, fantasy cornucopia, AI-dictatorship" bullshit that TZM does NOT mention nor imply at any time.

[jtimon]

I know what complexity and computability are. And the Go is as complex than chess, just the size of the problem is bigger. So even if both problems are computable, the difference between them is in computability and not in complexity: the opposite of what you have said.

Well, no. This proves you have not studied anything, and you do not know what you are talking about.

Computability tells you if a problem is solvable at all. Complexity tell you how much time will it require to solve it in Big O notation.

For example, here's a table of the complexities of some well-known games and here's go's complexity.

From your links:

Chess complexity class:    EXPTIME-complete
Go complexity class:    EXPTIME-complete

I repeat: both problems are computable. That means that a machine can solve them (no matter if it takes an eternity).
But that doesn't mean that the time of computation is the same.
8x8 Go is easier to compute than conventional chess (8x8), but 19x19 Go is harder.

Tell me, you that have studied so much computer science. What is the complexity (in Big O notation) of Go and what is the complexity of chess?
I'd say (correct me if I'm wrong in this, because I'm not sure how chess is generalized) that is O^2 for both (depending on the size of the board).
Computability is not just Yes or No. As I  said, some problems are easier to compute than others.

[jtimon]

I think that waiting for better technology is not the way to go to implement a political/economical system that preserves nature and justice.

I agree, that is why we should not wait for better technology, but utilise the one that we already have at its full potential instead. When our hardware and our software will improve, so will our society, if there is a connection between the two. if not, we will just have smarter and faster computers, with dumber and dumber politicians making idiotic decisions.

Although technology could be better utilized, there's already a connection between the two.
Why don't we just point to these idiotic decisions and explain other people why they are idiotic in a concrete manner instead of talking about some abstract future political/economic system.
Or just propose another concrete political/economic system.   

I don't understand why you call for awareness if everything is going to be great thanks to AI's cornucopia.

Because it will not. I'm starting to think there is a fundamental problem of understanding a communication: have you even read my previous posts and TZM material, to make such assertions? It seems that you superficially flicked through what other people say about TZM, but that you have not actually researched anything.

I've read your previous posts, but I've not read TZM material. I saw all the zeitgeist videos though. Although not very accurate in some claims, I find them entertaining.
Have you read my previous posts? You said you just read to page 7.

TZM does not advocate using super powerful and improbable futuristic general purpose AI to solve all of our problems. That's what you think it does, and then you disagree with what you have just say. See Dilbert comic above. You did it again.

TZM simply proposes to utilise the scientific method, what we use to make anything work well in this society, also to the social design itself, with a systems approach.

That means, for example, that if a proposal of a new transportation system is to be put in place, rather than asking: "how much money will it cost?" or "will this benefit our financiers and stockholders", or "will this get me elected again next term", we should be asking other questions, such as "What kind of material does it use? Is it more or less efficient than the previous technology? What is the environmental impact? What are the health risks for the population? Is it really necessary, or rather will it have a detrimental effect of the local community? Will this actually improve the standard of living of the people, or does it just make the economy grow, irrespective of what people really need?" and so on.

The scientific method uses hypothesis that can be falseable. But many of your claims are so abstract that you can adapt them as we try to prove them wrong.
By removing financial considerations, you also remove valuable data to measure how economical (economy != capitalism) that proposal is.   

That is the basic idea. I don't understand why you keep pushing this "communism, fantasy cornucopia, AI-dictatorship" bullshit that TZM does NOT mention nor imply at any time.

I've not repeated communism or AI dictatorship because you clarified it to me (although I bet many TZM enthusiast don't think like you in that respect).
But yes, it seems to me that TZM is mostly based on "fantasy cornucopia".

[4v4l0n42]

What is the complexity (in Big O notation) of Go and what is the complexity of chess?
I'd say (correct me if I'm wrong in this, because I'm not sure how chess is generalized) that is O^2 for both (depending on the size of the board).

As you stated, both games have n*n complexity, and what changes is n. So, there is the only difference between the two games in terms of how much time will it require to compute (complexity), which is what I stated before.

As for computability, which ia a very specific term in and has a very specific meaning, they are exactly the same in computability theory, a branch of mathematical logic closely related to computer science, and theory of computation in CS.

Whether you use Turing-computable and μ-recursive functions or lambda calculus, it doesn't matter. They all have computationally equivalent power.

Computability is not just Yes or No.

Yes, it is. It determines which problems, or classes of problems, can be solved in each model of computation, but it doesn't tell you ho much will it take or how difficult it is.

As I  said, some problems are easier to compute than others

.... and that's the field of complexity, not computability.

[MatthewLM]

Has Metal Gear Solid taught people anything?

[4v4l0n42]

Why don't we just point to these idiotic decisions and explain other people why they are idiotic in a concrete manner instead of talking about some abstract future political/economic system.

Because it does not. TZM proposes a practical, tangible, verifiable, falsifiable, testable system.

Or just propose another concrete political/economic system.

It did. It's called "Resource Based Economy".

The scientific method uses hypothesis that can be falseable. But many of your claims are so abstract that you can adapt them as we try to prove them wrong.

Abstract? They are actually very practical, and falsifiable. So far, nobody has provided any evidence that what we propose cannot be achieved, is wrong, is worse that what we have. Just a lot of people not reading the material, misinterpreting and projecting into it just about anything.

Which is really a shame, because I am positive that what TZM proposes is far from optimal, and I would love to gather some actual, sound criticism, in order to improve it.

But yes, it seems to me that TZM is mostly based on "fantasy cornucopia".

Again, I see no evidence of that. Just you attaching names to things, with no research done whatsoever.

[Findeton]

That means, for example, that if a proposal of a new transportation system is to be put in place, rather than asking: "how much money will it cost?" or "will this benefit our financiers and stockholders", or "will this get me elected again next term", we should be asking other questions, such as "What kind of material does it use? Is it more or less efficient than the previous technology? What is the environmental impact? What are the health risks for the population? Is it really necessary, or rather will it have a detrimental effect of the local community? Will this actually improve the standard of living of the people, or does it just make the economy grow, irrespective of what people really need?" and so on.

That is the basic idea. I don't understand why you keep pushing this "communism, fantasy cornucopia, AI-dictatorship" bullshit that TZM does NOT mention nor imply at any time.

Those questions should be asked to voters and representatives. Voters are (or should be) the ones who control every political aspect, and of course what economic model to follow. It's called democracy.

Yeah, you can improve a lot our democracy, but only giving everyone more direct power, allowing liquid/direct democracy.

[jtimon]

What is the complexity (in Big O notation) of Go and what is the complexity of chess?
I'd say (correct me if I'm wrong in this, because I'm not sure how chess is generalized) that is O^2 for both (depending on the size of the board).

As you stated, both games have n*n complexity, and what changes is n. So, there is the only difference between the two games in terms of how much time will it require to compute (complexity), which is what I stated before.

As for computability, which ia a very specific term in and has a very specific meaning, they are exactly the same in computability theory, a branch of mathematical logic closely related to computer science, and theory of computation in CS.

Whether you use Turing-computable and μ-recursive functions or lambda calculus, it doesn't matter. They all have computationally equivalent power.

Computability is not just Yes or No.

Yes, it is. It determines which problems, or classes of problems, can be solved in each model of computation, but it doesn't tell you ho much will it take or how difficult it is.

Yes, I'm sorry. That's the right definition. My fault.

.... and that's the field of complexity, not computability.

My point is...
With the same complexity class, we have a problem in which, (unlike tick-tack-toe)  the human brain is better computing than the machine the greater n is, precisely in a field (computable problems) in which the human has been defeated numerable times, with the notorious example of chess.
I think the machines have to learn more about the brain in this particular problem than the brain has to learn from the machine. The robustness and adaptability of humans will keep us in the employment market for a long, long time (maybe forever?).

We'll never build a machine that "values" better than us, whatever that means. And politics/economics is all about what society and individuals value.

Sorry again. I've asked to this reply without reading the next one.

[jtimon]

Ok, I should read the material of TZM more deeply before having an opinion on it. I'm just talking about what I heard (or wachted), but I must admit I haven't read much about the movement.
You're right again, my criticism could be more productive if I do.
I still don't know what's the difference between RBE and TZM is, so I should definitely study it before making risky claims about any of them.