|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 04 2017 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 08:55 Wegandi wrote:On December 04 2017 06:29 Uldridge wrote:
It's at the very least one of the options we'll have Automation does nothing to solve the allocation of resources problem (and before you mention it, neither does AI) with communism inherent because of no price system. There's also the incompatibility with human nature, but the first problem is good enough to sink the ship. Really? Because I think an advanced AI in charge could make communism work. Precisely because its not shackled by human nature. But then, all forms of government would probably be improved by handing it over to an AI.
That highly depends on the AI.
A big problem with AI in that case is "Who gets to program it"
Even ignoring that, another problem is that it might decide on allocating stuff in a way that doesn't fit how humans would want it allocated. Stuff that the AI prioritizes doesn't necessarily lead to the best outcome for humans. And even if it leads to the best outcome for humans, humans might not like it anyways. I don't believe it is very easy to program an AI with an instruction set that fits how humans would like to be governed.
|
On December 04 2017 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 08:55 Wegandi wrote:On December 04 2017 06:29 Uldridge wrote:
It's at the very least one of the options we'll have Automation does nothing to solve the allocation of resources problem (and before you mention it, neither does AI) with communism inherent because of no price system. There's also the incompatibility with human nature, but the first problem is good enough to sink the ship. Really? Because I think an advanced AI in charge could make communism work. Precisely because its not shackled by human nature. But then, all forms of government would probably be improved by handing it over to an AI.
How is an AI going to allocate resources effectively when it doesn't have the requisite knowledge. I think Hayek put the final nail in the coffin for Communism in toto. Distributed knowledge, known only to individuals, can only be leveraged by individuals, not a central planner. The reason the market is the best mechanism we have is precisely because it is the best at allowing individuals to utilize this knowledge while using the price mechanism to inform society in general about preference and demand. Even then, it's extremely difficult given the failure rate of entrepreneurs. How is a robot AI going to be better with no price mechanism and non-omniscience so it cannot discern individual ordinal preference, demand, etc. let alone a system where it then collates that information and assigns its own utility barometer (e.g. the allocation of resources - what makes one thing more important than another for society and individuals, etc.). Prices do that. They also do a very good job of distributing that knowledge to society - without prices, what rationing mechanism are you going to have so someone doesn't just say they want 50,000x of a good? Does an AI know "reasonable". It's one thing for an AI to learn a game, even with as much complexity as Go, but economic calculation is infinitely more complex. It takes an omniscient being to solve the calculation problem.
Because this distributed knowledge, while incomplete, is essential to economic planning, its necessity is cited as evidence in support of the argument that economic planning must be performed in a similarly distributed fashion by individual actors. In other words, economic planning by a central actor (e.g. a government bureaucracy or a central bank) necessarily lacks this information because, as Hayek observed, statistical aggregates cannot accurately account for the universe of local knowledge
|
On December 04 2017 09:08 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On December 04 2017 08:55 Wegandi wrote:On December 04 2017 06:29 Uldridge wrote:
It's at the very least one of the options we'll have Automation does nothing to solve the allocation of resources problem (and before you mention it, neither does AI) with communism inherent because of no price system. There's also the incompatibility with human nature, but the first problem is good enough to sink the ship. Really? Because I think an advanced AI in charge could make communism work. Precisely because its not shackled by human nature. But then, all forms of government would probably be improved by handing it over to an AI. That highly depends on the AI. A big problem with AI in that case is "Who gets to program it" Even ignoring that, another problem is that it might decide on allocating stuff in a way that doesn't fit how humans would want it allocated. Stuff that the AI prioritizes doesn't necessarily lead to the best outcome for humans. And even if it leads to the best outcome for humans, humans might not like it anyways. I don't believe it is very easy to program an AI with an instruction set that fits how humans would like to be governed.
As I said, advanced AI, its not something I believe we are capable of doing now or in the likely foreseeable future. If it doesn't make the 'best' choices then its not programmed/taught correctly since its purpose would be to make the right choices to help people (within certain parameters ofcourse, kill the poor might work out long term but that's not what we want).
Making choices that humans might not like it always going to happen, no one is always happy.
My hope for advanced AI technology rests on a simple principle. Humans are kinda bad a making decisions for 'the good of the people' because we're hardwired to think of ourselves. A lot of the flaws in government come from the people making decisions being human.
Objective AI decision making can help tremendously here, providing it is managed correctly.
|
On December 04 2017 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 08:55 Wegandi wrote:On December 04 2017 06:29 Uldridge wrote:
It's at the very least one of the options we'll have Automation does nothing to solve the allocation of resources problem (and before you mention it, neither does AI) with communism inherent because of no price system. There's also the incompatibility with human nature, but the first problem is good enough to sink the ship. Really? Because I think an advanced AI in charge could make communism work. Precisely because its not shackled by human nature. But then, all forms of government would probably be improved by handing it over to an AI.
Are you sure you're talking about an AI "leader" instead of an AI robot civilization? Humans will always quibble over the fairness of resource allocation. Outsourcing the problem to an AI only punts the question to the AI's human architect.
|
On December 04 2017 08:55 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 06:29 Uldridge wrote:
It's at the very least one of the options we'll have Automation does nothing to solve the allocation of resources problem (and before you mention it, neither does AI) with communism inherent because of no price system. There's also the incompatibility with human nature, but the first problem is good enough to sink the ship.
I'd call capitalism a failure as a system to allocate resources. It has led to huge amounts of food waste and the empty housing and homeless situation I mentioned some pages back. It might have worked for a while, but right now the valuation the market has placed on various professions' contributions to society is completely FUBAR. Essential professions like nursing don't have enough people working in the field because the compensation is not actually sufficient for the job, so the only people who go into it are those who aren't looking at the compensation to start with. On the other side, we have tech startups that aren't profitable but keep pulling in investment capital anyway, presumably to cash out at the expense of the general public as in the Facebook IPO.
It turns out that the best way to make money is to shuffle money around, so that's what investors put their money in.
To elaborate on this a little, someone argued earlier in the thread in favor of low taxes and regulation driving investment and innovation with the logic that one person with $1,000,000 will invest more than ten people with $100,000 each. Following that logic, that one person with $1,000,000 with be able to invest far, far more than one hundred people with $10,000 each. The poorest 80% of the US has under 15% of the total wealth. A rational market would be completely unresponsive to the wants and needs of the average American.
|
On December 04 2017 09:46 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 08:55 Wegandi wrote:On December 04 2017 06:29 Uldridge wrote:
It's at the very least one of the options we'll have Automation does nothing to solve the allocation of resources problem (and before you mention it, neither does AI) with communism inherent because of no price system. There's also the incompatibility with human nature, but the first problem is good enough to sink the ship. I'd call capitalism a failure as a system to allocate resources. It has led to huge amounts of food waste and the empty housing and homeless situation I mentioned some pages back. It might have worked for a while, but right now the valuation the market has placed on various professions' contributions to society is completely FUBAR. Essential professions like nursing don't have enough people working in the field because the compensation is not actually sufficient for the job, so the only people who go into it are those who aren't looking at the compensation to start with. On the other side, we have tech startups that aren't profitable but keep pulling in investment capital anyway, presumably to cash out at the expense of the general public as in the Facebook IPO. It turns out that the best way to make money is to shuffle money around, so that's what investors put their money in. To elaborate on this a little, someone argued earlier in the thread in favor of low taxes and regulation driving investment and innovation with the logic that one person with $1,000,000 will invest more than ten people with $100,000 each. Following that logic, that one person with $1,000,000 with be able to invest far, far more than one hundred people with $10,000 each. The poorest 80% of the US has under 15% of the total wealth. A rational market would be completely unresponsive to the wants and needs of the average American.
Agreed. I literally can't fathom how someone sees 30,000 homeless veterans, ~20 veterans killing themselves every day (much faster than we've lost troops in the last 15+ years of war), hungry kids, people working 50+ hours and being under the poverty line, kids in dilapidated school buildings, the wasted food, all of that. Meanwhile, we also have giant personal ships with helipads and speedboat bays, skyscrapers with entire floors dedicated to wealth hoarders, gold plated FOOD, and so on.
Then they think "Wow capitalism is doing a great job allocating resources in the wealthiest country in the world".
No, it's not. Rich people are eating fucking gold, while kids don't know if they'll have dinner. That's some shit I would expect from inbred royalty. Not a system that efficiently allocates resources.
|
On December 04 2017 09:17 Wegandi wrote:How is an AI going to allocate resources effectively when it doesn't have the requisite knowledge. I think Hayek put the final nail in the coffin for Communism in toto. Distributed knowledge, known only to individuals, can only be leveraged by individuals, not a central planner. The reason the market is the best mechanism we have is precisely because it is the best at allowing individuals to utilize this knowledge while using the price mechanism to inform society in general about preference and demand. Even then, it's extremely difficult given the failure rate of entrepreneurs. How is a robot AI going to be better with no price mechanism and non-omniscience so it cannot discern individual ordinal preference, demand, etc. let alone a system where it then collates that information and assigns its own utility barometer (e.g. the allocation of resources - what makes one thing more important than another for society and individuals, etc.). Prices do that. They also do a very good job of distributing that knowledge to society - without prices, what rationing mechanism are you going to have so someone doesn't just say they want 50,000x of a good? Does an AI know "reasonable". It's one thing for an AI to learn a game, even with as much complexity as Go, but economic calculation is infinitely more complex. It takes an omniscient being to solve the calculation problem. Show nested quote +Because this distributed knowledge, while incomplete, is essential to economic planning, its necessity is cited as evidence in support of the argument that economic planning must be performed in a similarly distributed fashion by individual actors. In other words, economic planning by a central actor (e.g. a government bureaucracy or a central bank) necessarily lacks this information because, as Hayek observed, statistical aggregates cannot accurately account for the universe of local knowledge
Why would price in the traditional sense still exist when you mine with automatons and produce goods with automatons? You can calculate down to a T what amount and variety of food someone needs in order to develop into a person that can reach its full potential (no vitamin deficiencies or whatever). It can organized to be more efficient (cut out the middle man, cut out the transport all over the world because its cheaper, cut out the excess food in supermarkets (of which thousands of dollars are thrown out of every single day per supermarket)).
A human will get enough/plenty to get by, I don't see any issue here. No discrimination, no whining. If someone needs more sugar in their diet or has an inherent metabolite deficiency, this person will get more of that resource (more fish instead of meat for example).
If you know how many humans there are on this planet, you know how much food you need to feed them. It's literally elementary math, not Go amounts of calculation are necessary for this. Basic human necessities (health, nutrition, shelter) should be provided without question, without wanting anything in return. At this present time people are punished to get what they actually need. I call putting prices on health care and food blackmailing of the scummiest kind. People deserve better, people deserve more equal opportunity and by leveling the playing field on these basic necessities, you'll come a very long way.
Let's expand on automated society.
You don't need something like currency any longer. You can receive credit (let's say everything is digitalized, why would you need physical money, it's a waste of resources anyway) when you do some work that's not automated (yet) or create things people could want. This makes you afford nicer things, because you actually deserve nicer things (or more stuff).
People don't lose the drive for innovation either because people want to make/build stuff anyway. Cyber enhanced (tool assisted) human engineering/creation is definitely a possibility where structures/artwork/new technology could arise that's beyond anything you could ever imagine. But this is more along the line of a transhumanist evolution, which will be on par with the implementation of automation.
What the biggest issue will be: people can't let go of a tradition (the implementation and subsequent growth of a monstrous, all devouring economy) they set in motion. They want to block it because they can't see the glaring possibilities and upsides for mankind. They'll only think for their immediate selves and it won't get any traction for a while, and perhaps never.
|
United States42925 Posts
On December 04 2017 09:17 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On December 04 2017 08:55 Wegandi wrote:On December 04 2017 06:29 Uldridge wrote:
It's at the very least one of the options we'll have Automation does nothing to solve the allocation of resources problem (and before you mention it, neither does AI) with communism inherent because of no price system. There's also the incompatibility with human nature, but the first problem is good enough to sink the ship. Really? Because I think an advanced AI in charge could make communism work. Precisely because its not shackled by human nature. But then, all forms of government would probably be improved by handing it over to an AI. How is an AI going to allocate resources effectively when it doesn't have the requisite knowledge. I think Hayek put the final nail in the coffin for Communism in toto. Distributed knowledge, known only to individuals, can only be leveraged by individuals, not a central planner. The reason the market is the best mechanism we have is precisely because it is the best at allowing individuals to utilize this knowledge while using the price mechanism to inform society in general about preference and demand. Even then, it's extremely difficult given the failure rate of entrepreneurs. How is a robot AI going to be better with no price mechanism and non-omniscience so it cannot discern individual ordinal preference, demand, etc. let alone a system where it then collates that information and assigns its own utility barometer (e.g. the allocation of resources - what makes one thing more important than another for society and individuals, etc.). Prices do that. They also do a very good job of distributing that knowledge to society - without prices, what rationing mechanism are you going to have so someone doesn't just say they want 50,000x of a good? Does an AI know "reasonable". It's one thing for an AI to learn a game, even with as much complexity as Go, but economic calculation is infinitely more complex. It takes an omniscient being to solve the calculation problem. Show nested quote +Because this distributed knowledge, while incomplete, is essential to economic planning, its necessity is cited as evidence in support of the argument that economic planning must be performed in a similarly distributed fashion by individual actors. In other words, economic planning by a central actor (e.g. a government bureaucracy or a central bank) necessarily lacks this information because, as Hayek observed, statistical aggregates cannot accurately account for the universe of local knowledge
You write this as if you're not choosing purchases from a selection of items curated for you by an algorithm. A computer is already deciding what you'll buy.
|
On December 04 2017 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 09:46 Kyadytim wrote:On December 04 2017 08:55 Wegandi wrote:On December 04 2017 06:29 Uldridge wrote:
It's at the very least one of the options we'll have Automation does nothing to solve the allocation of resources problem (and before you mention it, neither does AI) with communism inherent because of no price system. There's also the incompatibility with human nature, but the first problem is good enough to sink the ship. I'd call capitalism a failure as a system to allocate resources. It has led to huge amounts of food waste and the empty housing and homeless situation I mentioned some pages back. It might have worked for a while, but right now the valuation the market has placed on various professions' contributions to society is completely FUBAR. Essential professions like nursing don't have enough people working in the field because the compensation is not actually sufficient for the job, so the only people who go into it are those who aren't looking at the compensation to start with. On the other side, we have tech startups that aren't profitable but keep pulling in investment capital anyway, presumably to cash out at the expense of the general public as in the Facebook IPO. It turns out that the best way to make money is to shuffle money around, so that's what investors put their money in. To elaborate on this a little, someone argued earlier in the thread in favor of low taxes and regulation driving investment and innovation with the logic that one person with $1,000,000 will invest more than ten people with $100,000 each. Following that logic, that one person with $1,000,000 with be able to invest far, far more than one hundred people with $10,000 each. The poorest 80% of the US has under 15% of the total wealth. A rational market would be completely unresponsive to the wants and needs of the average American. Agreed. I literally can't fathom how someone sees 30,000 homeless veterans, ~20 veterans killing themselves every day (much faster than we've lost troops in the last 15+ years of war), hungry kids, people working 50+ hours and being under the poverty line, kids in dilapidated school buildings, the wasted food, all of that. Meanwhile, we also have giant personal ships with helipads and speedboat bays, skyscrapers with entire floors dedicated to wealth hoarders, gold plated FOOD, and so on. Then they think "Wow capitalism is doing a great job allocating resources in the wealthiest country in the world". No, it's not. Rich people are eating fucking gold, while kids don't know if they'll have dinner. That's some shit I would expect from inbred royalty. Not a system that efficiently allocates resources.
There is not a single country on the planet without inequality. Developed market economies generally have less beggars or homeless veterans than most countries that experiment with planned economies, which is a catastrophic failure. You do not need to be a hardcore capitalist to understand the underlying logic. Markets can capture information more efficiently than a central institution.
|
On December 04 2017 10:21 Nyxisto wrote:
There is not a single country on the world without inequality. Developed market economies generally have less beggars or homeless veterans than most countries that experiment with planned economies, which is a catastrophic failure. You do not need to be a hardcore capitalist to understand the underlying logic. Markets can capture information more efficiently than a central institution.
And a decent AI wouldn't be able to capture information about the people this planet inhabits, right?
|
I think we're a little too far away from omniscient mind reading AI's to talk about that productively
Not to mention that this would put us essentially into AI north korea, and I'm not to keen of losing all my autonomy to a supercomputer just to realise central planning
Is this some kind of Calvinist fantasy haunting the communists?
|
On December 04 2017 10:21 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 04 2017 09:46 Kyadytim wrote:On December 04 2017 08:55 Wegandi wrote:On December 04 2017 06:29 Uldridge wrote:
It's at the very least one of the options we'll have Automation does nothing to solve the allocation of resources problem (and before you mention it, neither does AI) with communism inherent because of no price system. There's also the incompatibility with human nature, but the first problem is good enough to sink the ship. I'd call capitalism a failure as a system to allocate resources. It has led to huge amounts of food waste and the empty housing and homeless situation I mentioned some pages back. It might have worked for a while, but right now the valuation the market has placed on various professions' contributions to society is completely FUBAR. Essential professions like nursing don't have enough people working in the field because the compensation is not actually sufficient for the job, so the only people who go into it are those who aren't looking at the compensation to start with. On the other side, we have tech startups that aren't profitable but keep pulling in investment capital anyway, presumably to cash out at the expense of the general public as in the Facebook IPO. It turns out that the best way to make money is to shuffle money around, so that's what investors put their money in. To elaborate on this a little, someone argued earlier in the thread in favor of low taxes and regulation driving investment and innovation with the logic that one person with $1,000,000 will invest more than ten people with $100,000 each. Following that logic, that one person with $1,000,000 with be able to invest far, far more than one hundred people with $10,000 each. The poorest 80% of the US has under 15% of the total wealth. A rational market would be completely unresponsive to the wants and needs of the average American. Agreed. I literally can't fathom how someone sees 30,000 homeless veterans, ~20 veterans killing themselves every day (much faster than we've lost troops in the last 15+ years of war), hungry kids, people working 50+ hours and being under the poverty line, kids in dilapidated school buildings, the wasted food, all of that. Meanwhile, we also have giant personal ships with helipads and speedboat bays, skyscrapers with entire floors dedicated to wealth hoarders, gold plated FOOD, and so on. Then they think "Wow capitalism is doing a great job allocating resources in the wealthiest country in the world". No, it's not. Rich people are eating fucking gold, while kids don't know if they'll have dinner. That's some shit I would expect from inbred royalty. Not a system that efficiently allocates resources. There is not a single country on the planet without inequality. Developed market economies generally have less beggars or homeless veterans than most countries that experiment with planned economies, which is a catastrophic failure. You do not need to be a hardcore capitalist to understand the underlying logic. Markets can capture information more efficiently than a central institution.
Can and do are different.
Capitalism is used as an excuse/justification for poverty and inhumane treatment of other humans. That people are poor because they aren't valuable to society. Can't blame someone in 1790 from being that ignorant, but we can totally blame people alive today. There's ample evidence to show that someones innate value to society does not share a causational relationship with how society compensates you. Otherwise we wouldn't have hungry, homeless, vets who can't get medical care to prevent them from killing themselves in the wealthiest country in the world.
Capitalism is necessary to rationalize and justify a dozen people hoarding more wealth than the majority of the country. Without the myth of a meritocracy there's no way to maintain such absurd inequality in a modern world.
|
If data mining from powerhouses such as google is so integral to the daily market strategy, why couldn't an AI simply take that over? I mean, the basic infrastructure is basically already in place.
You dare to compare a world where everything would be done for you as efficient as possible without exploiting people and providing every single human being with the chance to develop itself as it wants to North Korea? Are you insane? Or just scared of surrendering yourself to something that's far more capable than humans will ever be?
|
I don't understand how you've made the leap from assistance in marketing to somehow modelling the entire global economy down to individual needs and desires. That's science fiction, it doesn't exist and it possibly never will.
Or just scared of surrendering yourself to something that's far more capable than humans will ever be?
Of course I'm not willing to surrender my autonomy to some kind of ai godhead, what a question lol. Sorry, I like a healthy degree of individual freedom very much. I don't need to replace medieval religion with a techno religion
|
On December 04 2017 10:34 Uldridge wrote:
If data mining from powerhouses such as google is so integral to the daily market strategy, why couldn't an AI simply take that over? I mean, the basic infrastructure is basically already in place.
You dare to compare a world where everything would be done for you as efficient as possible without exploiting people and providing every single human being with the chance to develop itself as it wants to North Korea? Are you insane? Or just scared of surrendering yourself to something that's far more capable than humans will ever be?
Instead of surrendering yourself to your god emporer you surrender yourself to your god robot. its the same thing but one isn't even human.
|
Assistance in marketing, nice euphemism lol. They basically have that shit down to a science.
How will you not have individual freedom when you can do what you wantttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt. I don't get your reasoning. You'll literally be the most free you'd ever be.
Maybe I should rephrase: you like incompetent people deciding over your surroundings and availability more than something that's vastly more competent, up to the point that literally no child would be left behind?
|
On December 04 2017 10:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 10:34 Uldridge wrote:
If data mining from powerhouses such as google is so integral to the daily market strategy, why couldn't an AI simply take that over? I mean, the basic infrastructure is basically already in place.
You dare to compare a world where everything would be done for you as efficient as possible without exploiting people and providing every single human being with the chance to develop itself as it wants to North Korea? Are you insane? Or just scared of surrendering yourself to something that's far more capable than humans will ever be? Instead of surrendering yourself to your god emporer you surrender yourself to your god robot. its the same thing but one isn't even human.
Apparently the new generation considers individual freedom to be heavily overrated.
|
On December 04 2017 10:46 Sermokala wrote:
Instead of surrendering yourself to your god emporer you surrender yourself to your god robot. its the same thing but one isn't even human.
And I'll feel much more relaxed knowing it has a firm grasp on what it's doing instead of fumbling in the dark.
On December 04 2017 10:49 xDaunt wrote:
Apparently the new generation considers individual freedom to be heavily overrated.
Please explain to me how literally being able to do what you want because every basic necessity is accounted for isn't individual freedom.
|
On December 04 2017 10:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 10:46 Sermokala wrote:On December 04 2017 10:34 Uldridge wrote:
If data mining from powerhouses such as google is so integral to the daily market strategy, why couldn't an AI simply take that over? I mean, the basic infrastructure is basically already in place.
You dare to compare a world where everything would be done for you as efficient as possible without exploiting people and providing every single human being with the chance to develop itself as it wants to North Korea? Are you insane? Or just scared of surrendering yourself to something that's far more capable than humans will ever be? Instead of surrendering yourself to your god emporer you surrender yourself to your god robot. its the same thing but one isn't even human. Apparently the new generation considers individual freedom to be heavily overrated.
No they're still the same brand of hippies they just tend more to go to college and educate their meaningless criticisms more.
On December 04 2017 10:51 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 10:46 Sermokala wrote:
Instead of surrendering yourself to your god emporer you surrender yourself to your god robot. its the same thing but one isn't even human. And I'll feel much more relaxed knowing it has a firm grasp on what it's doing instead of fumbling in the dark. Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 10:49 xDaunt wrote:
Apparently the new generation considers individual freedom to be heavily overrated. Please explain to me how literally being able to do what you want because every basic necessity is accounted for isn't individual freedom.
Please explain to me how you can literally be able to conceive of a system that accounts for every basic necessity? The god robot will be made by men not god. It will be flawed.
|
On December 04 2017 10:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 10:46 Sermokala wrote:On December 04 2017 10:34 Uldridge wrote:
If data mining from powerhouses such as google is so integral to the daily market strategy, why couldn't an AI simply take that over? I mean, the basic infrastructure is basically already in place.
You dare to compare a world where everything would be done for you as efficient as possible without exploiting people and providing every single human being with the chance to develop itself as it wants to North Korea? Are you insane? Or just scared of surrendering yourself to something that's far more capable than humans will ever be? Instead of surrendering yourself to your god emporer you surrender yourself to your god robot. its the same thing but one isn't even human. Apparently the new generation considers individual freedom to be heavily overrated.
The illusion of individual freedom certainly is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
