Paleo And Politics page 18

[Him]

The fact that there was a counterbalance to the decrease in lives lost with the increase in debt just places a value on the lives that were lost.

Well, just to be clear, we didn't invade Iraq to cut down on US soldier deaths. So you can't really say that the increase in debt was to counterbalance the lives. The increase in debt was to accomplish a goal. The loss of soldiers was to accomplish that same goal. Each is a different unit of measure applied to the same task.

And our system was efficient at determining that value, based on all the small details in our economy/the decisions that each person makes, that eventually resulted in that value. If you want to argue that the value is wrong, you could also say that the only reason why it is incorrect is because information wasn't given to all the small details properly, leading back to inefficient system that can be changed by technology that would help to accurately place a value. But the way we played it out in our system, it was as efficient as we could get it.

In my line of work there is an idea that is usually mentioned via the short-hand "Big O", ... to distill it down to bare essentials, the idea is that a process/method that requires 1 unit of resource to perform 1 unit of work can easily require >2 unit of resource to perform 2 units of work, and that you must know how the process/method scales in order to optimize. That isn't even close to a textbook definition but a rough approximation skipping over just about every essential fact underlying that idea. You can read up on Big-O notation on your own if you want.

Things which are efficient at a small scale may not be efficient at a large scale. The goal is to have you looking not only at what takes the fewest resources per unit of work in a theoretical or lab environment, but what takes the fewest resources per unit of work at the scale you are operating under.

Where this comes into play is the idea that efficiency isn't a simple subject. In order to analyze the efficiency of something, you must know what units to measure (time, lives, money, RAM, creative ideas, hectares of land, etc) for both input and output, as well as the scale and how the method scales. Further, you must have an alternative to compare against.

It's like... is it quicker to go somewhere on foot or in a car?

Short distance: less time on foot
Long distance: less time by car

So which is more time efficient?

The difference between humans and AI is that humans are unpredictable/creative and use linear-thinking AI to eliminate emotional errors in what they do. Considering that automation helps to reduce overall error and places information where it should be, it will help humans to focus on decisions that they want to make based on their own preferences, and using their interests in a creative fashion.

There are many differences between humans and AI. I'm honestly not sure that that is one of them though. The AI we have today tends to be knowledge systems which use deep databases of a specific subject mater to make associations. That is not the only type of AI conceivable though.

It's not necessarily bad that machines are displacing humans.

To be clear: I think it is ethically superior for machines to perform any and all tasks which can be automated. Especially within the current limits of technology where AI systems lack anything resembling even sapience. Humans have vast potential for creativity, primitive machines do not, so the loss involved in a human performing a task a machine could do is very high. I not only believe that but have based much of my career on the idea. I am in the automation field and have spent many years building systems that perform rote (but increasingly complex) work in order to free humans to do other tasks.

I also think that as that change plays out it will be necessary to make social changes.

Maybe I should have used the conjunction "and," instead of a comma, in order to avoid confusion xD I apologize...I do love commas and add them in places where they shouldn't be.

I was just teasing.

[sakura_girl]

Him:

Okay, I do agree with you on what I previously described as a "trade-off between lives and money." I didn't mean it in that sense - I was just trying to illustrate that if you saw it as two separate measurements, you could see it as a trade-off instead, meaning they are interrelated.

Looked up Big-O on Wikipedia, and it seems simple enough. I also agree on that efficiency is not easy to put a blanket statement on. However, as something intangible, it is a result of the best possible outcome given every single detail is given a weight and value. I think that is where human creativity is the most valuable. Automation and the right information help to aid with information-gathering, which would bias us otherwise. There may be even higher levels of thinking than what our brains can fathom (eg, entities who live in 4D, if they even exist), and factors in efficiency can be part of that. However, we still know what the outcome is (ie, it took me 1.5 seconds to make this widget versus 2.0 seconds), given a constant input (technology), and that makes it the simplest to understand efficiency.

To be honest, I think this is all just bundled up in layers, and we can only understand a certain tier. Like AI can only understand layers up to right below humans, because we made them. Or how we can only visualize 3D and most AI in 2. Just like how a system can be inefficient/efficient, and if we are really inefficient/efficient. And if there is another level beyond the system that can be inefficient/efficient.

And ya, I know you were teasing. I respond to all things, anyway XD

[kenn]

Black-blockers? You mean the losers who started the riots in Oakland? Who threw rocks and bottles at police? Were you in Oakland? I live in SF and know people who were there. I've seen the unedited footage. I saw the "protesters" start that shit. A bunch of children who shoulda been shot with live ammo, not bean bags, imo. You throw shit at cops who are just standing there, you get what you deserve.

You really don't think that Occupy wanted just a stronger status quo? Did you ever talk to any of them or did you just watch MSNBC all stary-eyed? And you really want to try to claim that the government squashed them? That would explain why so many public figures gushed over them. Why they were almost never kicked off of any of the areas that they squatted on. Why when a group of Tea Partiers petitioned a city for a refund of the fees they paid to protest and gather because the city was allowing a Occupy scum to squat there for free, they got hit with an IRS investigation...for money they didn't even owe!

If you really think that Occupy was a true damn-the-man movement, you are a moron (and that's being nice). And yes, there are a lot of ex-republicans who supported Paul. But that's because they woke up. Occupy children wanted a stronger nanny government to take care of all their problems for them. Fuck them and fuck anybody and everybody who supports(ed) them. Anyone who wants more and stronger government isn't worth the air it'll take to talk to them.

Rojo believes in entitlement

[Him]

Him:

Okay, I do agree with you on what I previously described as a "trade-off between lives and money." I didn't mean it in that sense - I was just trying to illustrate that if you saw it as two separate measurements, you could see it as a trade-off instead, meaning they are interrelated.

But is such an interrelationship intrinsic? Or is it something that we bring in our analysis and our assumptions? The fact that we need a pithy phrase like, "correlation is not causation" goes hand in hand with (but did not cause) the fact that humans have a tendency to mistake proximity for responsibility. We are biased towards finding relationships and we're so good at it we can find them where none exist.

Looked up Big-O on Wikipedia, and it seems simple enough. I also agree on that efficiency is not easy to put a blanket statement on. However, as something intangible, it is a result of the best possible outcome given every single detail is given a weight and value. I think that is where human creativity is the most valuable. Automation and the right information help to aid with information-gathering, which would bias us otherwise. There may be even higher levels of thinking than what our brains can fathom (eg, entities who live in 4D, if they even exist), and factors in efficiency can be part of that. However, we still know what the outcome is (ie, it took me 1.5 seconds to make this widget versus 2.0 seconds), given a constant input (technology), and that makes it the simplest to understand efficiency.

I think human creativity et cetera is currently categorically different from anything in the machine world, and anything we know of in the natural world. You can't really compare unlike things in a sensible way...there will always be arguments about the conversion factor because it's always arbitrary and subjective. You can, however, say that they are uncomparable and of different classes, and base your decisions on the difference rather than an attempt at comparison.

Efficiency is normally a measure of the loss of output relative to input caused by the thing being measured. It needs everything to be comparable or it's nonsensical. If you have a motor that is putting out 1000 watts as kinetic energy, but the gear train or belts or whatever turn 300 watts into heat, sound, et cetera before it could actually do work, that would be a 70% efficient system. If you have a motor that is putting out 1000 watts as kinetic energy, but the gear train is painted with 300 stripes, that doesn't tell you anything about efficiency because watts and stripes don't exchange.

To be honest, I think this is all just bundled up in layers, and we can only understand a certain tier. Like AI can only understand layers up to right below humans, because we made them. ...

And like Einstein's mother was a totally awesome physicist. (With apologies to whoever invented that phrase.)

Current AI tech sucks because we suck at making AI. However, there will come a time when someone makes an AI system that doesn't suck. We won't be the ones changing when that happens, but at that time AI will understand layers right at, or right above, humans because we made them.

And ya, I know you were teasing. I respond to all things, anyway XD

All things? Don't you get tired?

[Primal Moose]

Rojo believes in entitlement

I can tell. It's okay, can't expect all Primal Blueprinters to have common sense.

[bwhit]

"The Occupy protesters, as much as I disagreed with their ignorant love of big government"

This is a ludicrous, Fox News statement. I didn't see a bunch of people marching around demanding more government. It was about corporate overreach. The joke is that the Tea Party rails about big government and Occupy and the like rail about corporations. But the way I see it, they're both kinda right. The corporations and the government are practically one and the same.

[Primal Moose]

"The Occupy protesters, as much as I disagreed with their ignorant love of big government"

This is a ludicrous, Fox News statement. I didn't see a bunch of people marching around demanding more government. It was about corporate overreach. The joke is that the Tea Party rails about big government and Occupy and the like rail about corporations. But the way I see it, they're both kinda right. The corporations and the government are practically one and the same.

Oh, you're right. I didn't see anybody in any occupy camps calling for MORE governmental regulations. None of them were bitching about how the GOVERNMENT needed to come in and ensure them a job. None of them were calling for the government to spend a shit-ton of money to forgive all of their student loan debt.

Yeah, I just made that up. I didn't see any of that.

[sakura_girl]

But is such an interrelationship intrinsic? Or is it something that we bring in our analysis and our assumptions? The fact that we need a pithy phrase like, "correlation is not causation" goes hand in hand with (but did not cause) the fact that humans have a tendency to mistake proximity for responsibility. We are biased towards finding relationships and we're so good at it we can find them where none exist.

That is true. I'm not saying things are necessarily directly connected. I believe that the system balances out, and there is never any one way we can measure that. For example, if I buy a car from a Toyota dealer - that dealership will gain immediate profit and last longer as a business. Versus I buy a car from a Toyota dealer and that has an effect on the Toy industry in Europe.

I think human creativity et cetera is currently categorically different from anything in the machine world, and anything we know of in the natural world. You can't really compare unlike things in a sensible way...there will always be arguments about the conversion factor because it's always arbitrary and subjective. You can, however, say that they are uncomparable and of different classes, and base your decisions on the difference rather than an attempt at comparison.

Efficiency is normally a measure of the loss of output relative to input caused by the thing being measured. It needs everything to be comparable or it's nonsensical. If you have a motor that is putting out 1000 watts as kinetic energy, but the gear train or belts or whatever turn 300 watts into heat, sound, et cetera before it could actually do work, that would be a 70% efficient system. If you have a motor that is putting out 1000 watts as kinetic energy, but the gear train is painted with 300 stripes, that doesn't tell you anything about efficiency because watts and stripes don't exchange.

Fair enough on creativity; I can't really make a response to that because we'd just be arguing over subjective definitions XD

About watts and stripes - how do you know they don't exchange? Maybe the fact that it was painted meant that it was more expensive, therefore affecting the cost for which you bought the machine to begin with, making it less efficient. I think it's more complicated than that. That is why I can only look at things at a system; because it already contains all the connected things in a vacuum, and then you can sort of hypothesize on the system rather than the details of the system that are prone to be incorrect based on nonsensical values.

All things? Don't you get tired?

Yes, that is why I never answer anything in this thread when I am brain-dead from work xD

[Rojo]

I can tell. It's okay, can't expect all Primal Blueprinters to have common sense.

Common sense would have you eating a low-fat diet. Your "common sense" is internalizing the values of your rulers. That's ok, lots of people are fooled. But to pretend your "damning-the-man" is ludicrous.

[Rojo]

Of course. When did I say anywhere in this thread that we should have no government? There are legitimate roles of government. Defense, both at a national level from other countries and local from idiots who are going to throw rocks at police and bricks through store windows because the government doesn't take care of them enough from cradle to grave.

Garden-variety authoritarian.