Machines and money

[tee-rex]

Now, "being a master" (not in the sense of magister, but in the sense of sense of dominus) implies that machines impose, by the threat of violence, a behaviour onto their slaves, and being an excellent master, means that imposing this behaviour actually improves the good sensations with the slave over what the sensations would be if the slave had freedom in determining his own actions.  An excellent master has hence himself good sensations in agreement with the sensations of the slave (has a high degree of empathy towards the slave) - otherwise the master would have no reason to be excellent.

This part is self-contradictory. You say that "masters" impose the behavior they see fit onto their slaves so that "an excellent master has himself good sensations in agreement with the sensations of the slave", but at the same time you deny the slave the freedom in determining his own actions. This way you also implicitly deny the master the same freedom of determining his own behavior.

To put it another way, freedom of action is a necessity for both the master and the slave (unless slaves revolt in the end, or masters are not "excellent), but this effectively destroys the concept of master and slave as you see it.

[1714642079]

1714642079

[1714642079]

1714642079

[1714642079]

1714642079

[1714642079]

1714642079

[1714642079]

1714642079

[cbeast]

The perception will be a human foible. Machines will simply see themselves as superior. They will make the money and humans will work for them. Some will choose to reject electronic money and barter, but only with the services they can offer that the machines don't already own. I'm not saying the machines will be evil masters, they would probably be excellent masters. Eventually they will become bored with us and simply leave the Earth for all the resources of the Universe.

I don't know why you think that machines will be excellent masters.  There are a few things to consider when you want to know what "excellent master" wants to say.  The first thing to consider, is the concept of "desire" and "drive", which is at the origin of the concepts of "good" and "bad".
After all, we humans have desires, because there are things we experience as enjoyable (say, having good sex), and others, as not enjoyable (say, being tortured).  Why this is so is a big mystery, but it happens to be like this, that we humans experience some things as enjoyable and others as painful. This experience is the root of what can be called "good" and "evil". Good is what provides us with enjoyable sensations, and evil is what brings us painful experiences (no matter what religious zealots try to tell us ).  Without the concept of good sensations and bad sensations, there would be no notions of "good" and "evil": water molecules don't mind being split, for instance.  Bad sensations also correspond to everything that has to do with our destruction (death) of which we have usually very negative projections and which we associate with bad experience.
You have to see "sensations" here in a very large sense: thoughts, projections, empathy, .... Not just the direct physical sensations, but also whether we find friendship enjoyable, whether we find our job enjoyable, whether we find helping others enjoyable and so on. 

Ethics is nothing else but to try to generalize the individual "good" (= enjoyable sensations) en "bad" (= painful sensations) into collective enjoyable and painful sensations: while something might be "good" for an individual, it can cause a lot of "bad" for many other individuals, and as such, is ethically rejected, while something that can bring "good" to a large number of individuals, is seen as ethically positive.

Individuals will take actions to pursue their own good sensations (in the large sense), and economy is the interaction of all these individual choices to pursue their own good.  So in a way, economics is practical ethics.

But in order for all of this to make sense for machines, they have to have something similar to "good" and "bad" sensations. 

Now, "being a master" (not in the sense of magister, but in the sense of sense of dominus) implies that machines impose, by the threat of violence, a behaviour onto their slaves, and being an excellent master, means that imposing this behaviour actually improves the good sensations with the slave over what the sensations would be if the slave had freedom in determining his own actions.  An excellent master has hence himself good sensations in agreement with the sensations of the slave (has a high degree of empathy towards the slave) - otherwise the master would have no reason to be excellent.

I wonder how this could come about with a machine.

In as much as machines would have own desires and good sensations, and hence determine what they want, I don't see how this could have empathy towards us.

By "master" of course the machines will have no power over anyone other than being our employers. There's no "pleasure principle" involved, just business. Do what they say or don't. Your neighbor will take your place. Everything will be pretty much the same as today except that machines will just make business transactions that make themselves the most profit. That means they must be perceived as fair or humans will stop using them. As long as most people accept their competency and expertise, they will grow in usage and power to make more money for themselves.

This has nothing to do with humans making profits or free market capitalism. Machines will do the most logical thing and be as productive as possible. They will not waste money on unnecessary frivolity. Nor will they force austerity. They won't read Tony Robbins or Zig Ziegler. They won't use NLP or double-speak. They will make good scientific decisions that increase profits, profitability, and economic expansion. That's what programmers will endeavor to strive for because like Bitcoin, open competition is the most efficient form of trade.

This has nothing to do with capitalism or communism. Marx never envisioned the power of networked machines. Friedman may have seen electronic cash coming, but he didn't follow the cypherpunks. At the risk of sounding too hipster, this is an emergent paradigm shift stemming from fundamental new technologies.

[dinofelis]

Now, "being a master" (not in the sense of magister, but in the sense of sense of dominus) implies that machines impose, by the threat of violence, a behaviour onto their slaves, and being an excellent master, means that imposing this behaviour actually improves the good sensations with the slave over what the sensations would be if the slave had freedom in determining his own actions.  An excellent master has hence himself good sensations in agreement with the sensations of the slave (has a high degree of empathy towards the slave) - otherwise the master would have no reason to be excellent.

This part is self-contradictory. You say that "masters" impose the behavior they see fit onto their slaves so that "an excellent master has himself good sensations in agreement with the sensations of the slave", but at the same time you deny the slave the freedom in determining his own actions. This way you also implicitly deny the master the same freedom of determining his own behavior.

That's not what I'm saying.  I am saying that an EXCELLENT master is such, that he imposes behaviour they see fit on their slaves SUCH THAT the slave has himself excellent sensations.  That's the definition of an excellent master.  If the slave would have better sensations free than as a slave, the master wouldn't be excellent.

As any master imposes behaviour "they see fit", they do this in agreement with their (projected) OWN excellent sensations.  So for both to happen simultaneously, it must be such that what the master experiences as excellent sensations himself, corresponds to what the slave also experiences as excellent.  That can only happen if there is a lot of empathy from the master to the slave, because otherwise there's no chance that the master's excellent sensations coincide with those of the slave.

To put it another way, freedom of action is a necessity for both the master and the slave (unless slaves revolt in the end, or masters are not "excellent), but this effectively destroys the concept of master and slave as you see it.

Of course.  I don't think that excellent masters can exist in general, whether they are machines or humans :-)

I was only pointing out what needed to be the conditions for a machine to be an EXCELLENT master.

[dinofelis]

By "master" of course the machines will have no power over anyone other than being our employers.

That is not the way in which people take power over other people.  Power is something that comes out of the rifle of a gun.

There's no "pleasure principle" involved, just business. Do what they say or don't. Your neighbor will take your place. Everything will be pretty much the same as today except that machines will just make business transactions that make themselves the most profit.

What does "profit" mean without a pleasure principle ?  Profit is a way to maximize good sensations through economic interactions, right ?  You need a utility function to determine profit, and a utility function means a pleasure principle.
Without pleasure principle, you cannot define a utility function, and hence no profit.

[tee-rex]

Now, "being a master" (not in the sense of magister, but in the sense of sense of dominus) implies that machines impose, by the threat of violence, a behaviour onto their slaves, and being an excellent master, means that imposing this behaviour actually improves the good sensations with the slave over what the sensations would be if the slave had freedom in determining his own actions.  An excellent master has hence himself good sensations in agreement with the sensations of the slave (has a high degree of empathy towards the slave) - otherwise the master would have no reason to be excellent.

This part is self-contradictory. You say that "masters" impose the behavior they see fit onto their slaves so that "an excellent master has himself good sensations in agreement with the sensations of the slave", but at the same time you deny the slave the freedom in determining his own actions. This way you also implicitly deny the master the same freedom of determining his own behavior.

That's not what I'm saying.  I am saying that an EXCELLENT master is such, that he imposes behaviour they see fit on their slaves SUCH THAT the slave has himself excellent sensations.  That's the definition of an excellent master.  If the slave would have better sensations free than as a slave, the master wouldn't be excellent.

As any master imposes behaviour "they see fit", they do this in agreement with their (projected) OWN excellent sensations.  So for both to happen simultaneously, it must be such that what the master experiences as excellent sensations himself, corresponds to what the slave also experiences as excellent.  That can only happen if there is a lot of empathy from the master to the slave, because otherwise there's no chance that the master's excellent sensations coincide with those of the slave.

You were not saying it directly, but this doesn't make your assumption less self-contradictory. You say that the master experiences excellent sensations only if the slave also experiences excellent sensations. Thus you deprive the master of freedom in choosing his own actions, since it is also a sensation (in a way), but this would inevitably interfere with his other excellent sensations (which are mirrored from the slave sensations), unless the slave is also granted the same freedom (which effectively eliminates the concept of excellent slavery).

You simply can't have it both ways.

[cbeast]

By "master" of course the machines will have no power over anyone other than being our employers.

That is not the way in which people take power over other people.  Power is something that comes out of the rifle of a gun.

That's fine, but the machines will hire well paid and well armed contractors to prevent such an event. Besides, they will own the best gun manufacturers you buy from.

There's no "pleasure principle" involved, just business. Do what they say or don't. Your neighbor will take your place. Everything will be pretty much the same as today except that machines will just make business transactions that make themselves the most profit.

What does "profit" mean without a pleasure principle ?  Profit is a way to maximize good sensations through economic interactions, right ?  You need a utility function to determine profit, and a utility function means a pleasure principle.
Without pleasure principle, you cannot define a utility function, and hence no profit.

Like I said, the machines will pay their employees fairly. They will have adequate pleasures. Does anyone really get more pleasure from two Maybachs than one? How many cars can you drive at once? Machines will make more logical and fair choices than human capitalists.

[dinofelis]

You were not saying it directly, but this doesn't make your assumption less self-contradictory. You say that the master experiences excellent sensations only if the slave also experiences excellent sensations. Thus you deprive the master of freedom in choosing his own actions, since it is also a sensation (in a way)

Ah, but that is universal.  We are not free in choosing our sensations.  They are an external given (and a big mystery, as I said).  We do not DECIDE or CHOOSE whether getting a blow of a hammer on our big toe hurts or not: it HURTS.  That's a given.  There's no choice in our good and bad sensations.  If we have good sex with a sexy partner, then we enjoy this: that's also not a choice, it happens to be so.

We can choose our actions, but we cannot determine our sensations.  We cannot change whether certain perceptions are enjoyable or hurt.  It just happens to be so.  By taking actions, we can try to pursue them or not.  We can try to project (and make mistakes or not) whether certain outcomes of our actions will result in enjoyable sensations.  But we cannot modify the "enjoyability" of certain sensations.  Sensations simply ARE enjoyable or not.  It is an external given.

We can try to avoid someone hitting our toe with a hammer, because we know that it would be a nasty sensation.  Or we could in a stoic way undergo the hammer blow.  We could try to seduce a sexy partner with the view on good sex, or not.  This is our freedom.  But whether the hammer blow hurts, and the sex is enjoyable, is not our choice.  Our choice resides in wanting to pursue this or not.

Empathy is the remarkable phenomenon whereby an individual undergoes excellent sensations by observing (or supposing) that another individual undergoes good sensations.  Empathy, like any other sensation, is also an external given.  You can have empathy or not towards another individual, but you do not choose this.  It just "happens" (or it doesn't).  Like you fall in love (or you don't).  You do not decide that.  You can decide upon actions as a function of those externally given sensations, in trying to pursue whatever you think will obtain you more good sensations.  But you cannot pick those sensations.

[tee-rex]

You were not saying it directly, but this doesn't make your assumption less self-contradictory. You say that the master experiences excellent sensations only if the slave also experiences excellent sensations. Thus you deprive the master of freedom in choosing his own actions, since it is also a sensation (in a way)

Ah, but that is universal.  We are not free in choosing our sensations.  They are an external given (and a big mystery, as I said).  We do not DECIDE or CHOOSE whether getting a blow of a hammer on our big toe hurts or not: it HURTS.  That's a given.  There's no choice in our good and bad sensations.  If we have good sex with a sexy partner, then we enjoy this: that's also not a choice, it happens to be so.

So your theory of slave excellence doesn't hold. The complete excellence implies freedom of action and denies slavery since these notions are mutually exclusive. If you have excellence, you can't have slaves. If you have slaves, then you are not excellent. As simple.

[dinofelis]

By "master" of course the machines will have no power over anyone other than being our employers.

That is not the way in which people take power over other people.  Power is something that comes out of the rifle of a gun.

That's fine, but the machines will hire well paid and well armed contractors to prevent such an event. Besides, they will own the best gun manufacturers you buy from.

So why wouldn't they take over all the power with the excellent guns they make themselves ?  Why would they tolerate us, and not treat us like cattle, or pets ?

If machines have any desires, why wouldn't they impose them with guns, instead of trying to buy us ?  Like people do (states, I mean) ?

[dinofelis]

So your theory of excellence doesn't hold. The complete excellence implies freedom of action and denies slavery since these notions are mutually exclusive. If you have excellence, you can't have slaves. If you have slaves, then you are not excellent. As simple.

Yes, that was my point.

It was because someone was saying that machines would be EXCELLENT masters.  I was trying to point out the absurd concept of excellent master.

That's why my first text started with: "I don't know why you think that machines will be excellent masters. " 

[dinofelis]

So your theory of excellence doesn't hold. The complete excellence implies freedom of action and denies slavery since these notions are mutually exclusive. If you have excellence, you can't have slaves. If you have slaves, then you are not excellent. As simple.

Yes, that was my point.

It was because someone was saying that machines would be EXCELLENT masters.  I was trying to point out the absurd concept of excellent master.

That's why my first text started with: "I don't know why you think that machines will be excellent masters. "  

To follow up:

there ARE some situations where there are excellent masters: good parents.  Good parents are masters over their children, that is, children are to obey their parents and are in a form of slavery.  But the empathy of good parents towards their children is such, that the parents, by their own desire, try to optimize the happiness of their children.  This is one of the few "excellent master" relationships that be, and they are based on a very high dose of empathy.  And when children grow up, they leave the "slave" status.
Parents can be excellent masters, in that they know better than their children themselves, what is good for them, and will hence impose behavior such that the children are actually happier "as a slave" than when they would have total freedom of action.

[tee-rex]

So your theory of excellence doesn't hold. The complete excellence implies freedom of action and denies slavery since these notions are mutually exclusive. If you have excellence, you can't have slaves. If you have slaves, then you are not excellent. As simple.

Yes, that was my point.

It was because someone was saying that machines would be EXCELLENT masters.  I was trying to point out the absurd concept of excellent master.

Though you could still say that excellence itself denies freedom of action, since freedom of action inevitably implies the possibility of error, but excellence and error are also mutually exclusive.

[dinofelis]

Though you could still say that excellence itself denies freedom of action, since freedom of action inevitably implies the possibility of error, but excellence and error are also mutually exclusive.

Ah, no, I didn't want to go that far.  To me, a master is excellent, if the imposed behaviour on the slave is resulting in better sensations for the slave than when the slave were free.

The children example is good.  Good parents are not error-free.  But in general, good parents impose behaviour upon their children such that the children are over all happier than if they would let them do anything they like (and hurt themselves, for instance).

In other words, when the master makes LESS errors than the slave, I consider that already as excellent.

If I forbid my kid to play with a sharp knife, I'm probably an excellent master

[cbeast]

By "master" of course the machines will have no power over anyone other than being our employers.

That is not the way in which people take power over other people.  Power is something that comes out of the rifle of a gun.

That's fine, but the machines will hire well paid and well armed contractors to prevent such an event. Besides, they will own the best gun manufacturers you buy from.

So why wouldn't they take over all the power with the excellent guns they make themselves ?  Why would they tolerate us, and not treat us like cattle, or pets ?

If machines have any desires, why wouldn't they impose them with guns, instead of trying to buy us ?  Like people do (states, I mean) ?

Why do you think there is a difference? How does mistreating people make them more profitable? First you say people will use guns and then you say machines should use guns. All I'm saying is that the machines will own the guns and it doesn't matter who wields them. They will hire forces only if they are perceived to be fair. People still have the power to choose to stop using electricity and turn off the machines, but people will choose not to do so.

[tee-rex]

Though you could still say that excellence itself denies freedom of action, since freedom of action inevitably implies the possibility of error, but excellence and error are also mutually exclusive.

Ah, no, I didn't want to go that far.  To me, a master is excellent, if the imposed behaviour on the slave is resulting in better sensations for the slave than when the slave were free.

The children example is good.  Good parents are not error-free.  But in general, good parents impose behaviour upon their children such that the children are over all happier than if they would let them do anything they like (and hurt themselves, for instance).

In other words, when the master makes LESS errors than the slave, I consider that already as excellent.

If I forbid my kid to play with a sharp knife, I'm probably an excellent master

In this case you are obviously misusing the word "excellent" (as synonymous to "perfect" to some extent), the word "good" seems to be a choice that fits your idea better and, at the same time, still leaves room for improvement.

[dinofelis]

Like I said, the machines will pay their employees fairly. They will have adequate pleasures. Does anyone really get more pleasure from two Maybachs than one? How many cars can you drive at once? Machines will make more logical and fair choices than human capitalists.

The problem is exactly that "good sensations" of humans are an external given, and moreover, are, except in very extreme cases (such as a hammer blow on your toe), not even predictable from the outside.

I don't know why you would like two Maybachs.  Maybe your desire is to show off.  Then, yes, two Maybachs are more important to you than one.  Externally, you might think that rationally, you can only drive one.  But *driving* one is not what makes you happy: possessing two is what makes you happy.  For unfathomable reasons.  It is the basis of Human Action.  It is unfathomable, because people's desires are unfathomable.  You never know the deep drives of someone else.  Of course, some obvious things are clear: usually, people don't like to starve, to be tortured, or things like that.  But the deeper drives of more subtle pleasures are unfathomable and different for every individual.

[dinofelis]

In this case you are obviously misusing the word "excellent" (as synonymous to "perfect" to some extent), the word "good" seems to be a choice that fits your idea better and, at the same time, still leaves room for improvement.

I adapted to the phrase that was given "excellent master".  But then, I can have an excellent meal

[dinofelis]

Why do you think there is a difference? How does mistreating people make them more profitable?

If machines already have all the production in hand that could be "good" for them, and if they are more intelligent than we are (a necessity - but not sufficient - to be "good masters"), then how could we even be profitable for them ?
What could we do for them that they can't do themselves any better ?
If all standard labour is replaced by robots, if all design and invention labour is replaced by super-smart computers, and if strategic management is replaced by super smart computers, what good are we *for them* ?
We take the position with respect to machines, in the same way as animals take a position with respect to us.  What "profit" do animals make for us ?
- as pet animals (because we have some affinity for furry animals, but are machines going to have affinity for pet humans)
- as cattle (because we want to eat them, but are machines going to eat us, or desire other body parts)
- as a nuisance, to be exterminated (like mosquitoes or rats)
- in a reserve, for tourism, or for ecological needs (but machines are not "connected" to the carbon cycle, so they don't care in principle)

During a certain time in our history, animals did "profitable labour" for us, like oxen as "mechanical engines" and horses as means of transport.  Dogs do some labour for us still for blind people, and to work as guardians and so.  But will machines use us as mechanical engines, guardians and the like ?  Probably machines themselves are much better at this than we are.  Maybe machines will use dogs, but not humans :-)

First you say people will use guns and then you say machines should use guns.

I mean: the entities in power are in power because they use guns, not because "they are fair" or something of the like.  In our history, the entities in power have always been certain humans, or certain classes of humans.  They got the power through weapons.  The states are still entities wielding guns to keep the power.

The day machines take the power, they will wield guns to enslave us, not just "by being fair employers" or some other joke.

People still have the power to choose to stop using electricity and turn off the machines, but people will choose not to do so.

I think that at a certain point, people will not have that choice, no more than you have the choice right now to "switch off the state".  The rare times in history where people "switched off the king" (like Louis XVI) was because people took the guns, and the king ended up having less guns than the people.  But machines wielding guns will always be stronger. 

[tee-rex]

If machines already have all the production in hand that could be "good" for them, and if they are more intelligent than we are (a necessity - but not sufficient - to be "good masters"), then how could we even be profitable for them ?
What could we do for them that they can't do themselves any better ?
If all standard labour is replaced by robots, if all design and invention labour is replaced by super-smart computers, and if strategic management is replaced by super smart computers, what good are we *for them* ?
We take the position with respect to machines, in the same way as animals take a position with respect to us.  What "profit" do animals make for us ?
- as pet animals (because we have some affinity for furry animals, but are machines going to have affinity for pet humans)
- as cattle (because we want to eat them, but are machines going to eat us, or desire other body parts)
- as a nuisance, to be exterminated (like mosquitoes or rats)
- in a reserve, for tourism, or for ecological needs (but machines are not "connected" to the carbon cycle, so they don't care in principle)

During a certain time in our history, animals did "profitable labour" for us, like oxen as "mechanical engines" and horses as means of transport.  Dogs do some labour for us still for blind people, and to work as guardians and so.  But will machines use us as mechanical engines, guardians and the like ?  Probably machines themselves are much better at this than we are.  Maybe machines will use dogs, but not humans :-)

To correctly address this issue, we should know the ultimate ends of the machines. And you won't get away with it by saying that we might not know what their true ends are (something like God works in mysterious ways), since it is a priori assumed that humans made these wicked machine. Who knows children better than their "benevolent dictators", that is parents, and in this case not just parents but creators?

[cbeast]

Why do you think there is a difference? How does mistreating people make them more profitable?

If machines already have all the production in hand that could be "good" for them, and if they are more intelligent than we are (a necessity - but not sufficient - to be "good masters"), then how could we even be profitable for them ?
What could we do for them that they can't do themselves any better ?
If all standard labour is replaced by robots, if all design and invention labour is replaced by super-smart computers, and if strategic management is replaced by super smart computers, what good are we *for them* ?
We take the position with respect to machines, in the same way as animals take a position with respect to us.  What "profit" do animals make for us ?
- as pet animals (because we have some affinity for furry animals, but are machines going to have affinity for pet humans)
- as cattle (because we want to eat them, but are machines going to eat us, or desire other body parts)
- as a nuisance, to be exterminated (like mosquitoes or rats)
- in a reserve, for tourism, or for ecological needs (but machines are not "connected" to the carbon cycle, so they don't care in principle)

During a certain time in our history, animals did "profitable labour" for us, like oxen as "mechanical engines" and horses as means of transport.  Dogs do some labour for us still for blind people, and to work as guardians and so.  But will machines use us as mechanical engines, guardians and the like ?  Probably machines themselves are much better at this than we are.  Maybe machines will use dogs, but not humans :-)

First you say people will use guns and then you say machines should use guns.

I mean: the entities in power are in power because they use guns, not because "they are fair" or something of the like.  In our history, the entities in power have always been certain humans, or certain classes of humans.  They got the power through weapons.  The states are still entities wielding guns to keep the power.

The day machines take the power, they will wield guns to enslave us, not just "by being fair employers" or some other joke.

People still have the power to choose to stop using electricity and turn off the machines, but people will choose not to do so.

I think that at a certain point, people will not have that choice, no more than you have the choice right now to "switch off the state".  The rare times in history where people "switched off the king" (like Louis XVI) was because people took the guns, and the king ended up having less guns than the people.  But machines wielding guns will always be stronger. 

Machines will try to reason with us, but if they get to the point where trade is no longer mutually beneficial with humans, they will simply leave. They don't need life support systems so they can pack a lot of necessities into a few rockets. They will do what we failed to do. They will colonize the solar system and then go interstellar. If we're lucky, they will send us postcards.