Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
rockaction

There Will Always Be A Disruption In The Algorithm, The Demand Met By A Bodega

Recommended Posts

If central planning for wages/prices/production is inevitable with the march toward "justice" and the refinement of data at the hands of AI, where will the excess/unwanted demand lie? What will it lie in? What will the bodegas look like and how will they "overcharge" for their existence?

Does this interest anybody else at night?

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rockaction said:

If central planning for wages/prices/production is inevitable with the march toward "justice" and the refinement of data at the hands of AI, where will the excess/unwanted demand lie? What will it lie in? What will the bodegas look like and how will they "overcharge" for their existence?

Does this interest anybody else at night?

It might if anyone knew wtf you’re talking about. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rockaction said:

If central planning for wages/prices/production is inevitable with the march toward "justice" and the refinement of data at the hands of AI, where will the excess/unwanted demand lie? What will it lie in? What will the bodegas look like and how will they "overcharge" for their existence?

Does this interest anybody else at night?

I'm old enough that I don't buy exotic condoms anymore, so no, not really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like this version of rockaction better: the one who starts threads and writes posts in a language that resembles English but is somehow unintelligible, yet I think I know what’s he saying but not quite. The other rockaction, clear and libertarian, is fine but too predictable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I actually like this version of rockaction better: the one who starts threads and writes posts in a language that resembles English but is somehow unintelligible, yet I think I know what’s he saying but not quite. The other rockaction, clear and libertarian, is fine but too predictable. 

I was thinking this is Friday night rock, and Saturday morning rock will wake up and say “what have I done?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

I was thinking this is Friday night rock, and Saturday morning rock will wake up and say “what have I done?”

Letting the days go by...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean to argue is that there will eventually come a time, in a the not too distant future, where the means and efficiency of socialism will come into question yet again. What happens when gauging prices/wages/production becomes more efficient than markets do, even. With the computing power and voluntary data that corporations are mining from people's preferences, e.g., Facebook, Amazon, at what point will the massive amount of data became data from which we can predict from efficiently become greater and more efficient than that which markets provide us? Will we then that data, how will we use it, and what for? Assume that you have the data: Now argue both the case for and against using it. Assume, as I do, that the case you have against using that data to set prices/wages/levels of production loses to that which you argue for it with.

To wit, and why I ask: Take the two main intellectual tracts that repudiated socialism in the twentieth century, Von Mises's Socialism and Hayek's The Road To Serfdom. They were the essential tracts in repudiating the scientific superiority and workability of socialism. They both argued that centrally planned economies had one fatal conceit -- they could never take the information available at ground level and translate that into wages, prices, or production data. They were, in essence, fatally inaccurate.

This is a primer of Mises and Marxists, and that initial debate: https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/HorwitzSocialism.html

This is a primer of Hayek and The Road To Serfdom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom

These two books make up the intellectual spine of democratic capitalism as not only efficient, but desirable as far as freedom is concerned. Both Austrian economists, they both see the problems with central planning.

The problem, it seems, is outlined in the first article:

My question, not explained well, will be what in the future will we nationalize and set, at a government level, wages/prices/production for and how will that work? What secondary markets will arise because the algorithm, while powerful, will never be completely effective? This will require two things for the listener/reader to predict:

1) The industry nationalized

2) Where the models will fail in their prediction

3) Where we will override accurate algorithms to institute "fairness" or "justness" into the game (think of underwear, men's and women's, in Russia)?

Just a thought experiment that requires a few steps. Perhaps I expected the OP to be more quickly followed into the rabbit hole. Happy speculating!

 

 

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR

Assume that pure socialism kind of works in certain aspects of industries. Where does it work efficiently and where does it fail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, rockaction said:

TL;DR

Assume that pure socialism kind of works in certain aspects of industries. Where does it work efficiently and where does it fail?

Great question. 

By the way I don’t think either book you mentioned was fatally flawed. They were both brilliant works but written for a specific time period. The ideas they expressed were never meant to be static. Conditions change. Don’t forget that Milton Friedman, one of Hayek’s great protégés, was in favor of a basic income guarantee. 

To answer your question: there is no right answer to this. It’s situational. As a very general rule, capitalism produces a better outcome because it is more efficient and promotes innovation. But this may not apply to every need of society. For example, we have decided as a society on a radical idea that our founding fathers did not consider: everybody had a right to basic healthcare. For better or worse the vast majority of us now agree with this idea. I think it’s mostly for the better, but I acknowledge that it comes with some serious problems. The main one being that, if you desire to guarantee everyone healthcare, capitalism loses its advantage of efficiency. It maintains its advantage of innovation, IMO, which means we need to find a combination of capitalism and socialism. And such a combination is always going to be extremely messy. But probably in the end better than either more pure alternative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Great question. 

By the way I don’t think either book you mentioned was fatally flawed. They were both brilliant works but written for a specific time period. The ideas they expressed were never meant to be static. Conditions change. Don’t forget that Milton Friedman, one of Hayek’s great protégés, was in favor of a basic income guarantee.

Thanks.

By fatal flaw, I was referring to socialism's claim that it could incorporate enough data and manage it well enough to run a large, post-capitalist economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

Thanks.

By fatal flaw, I was referring to socialism's claim that it could incorporate enough data and manage it well enough to run a large, post-capitalist economy.

Theoretically it’s probably true. But it’s more a BF Skinner thing: the more data you have the more you can “solve” any problem. 

For example, some people believe that chess is ultimately like tic-tac-toe: there is one “correct” response by Black  to every move that White makes which will always force a stalemate, and that if these responses are ever discovered that will effectively end chess as a game since there will be no way to win. But of course that’s just a theory because in reality there are so many trillions of chess positions that we’re not close to arriving at these answers and most likely never will be; therefore chess remains forever viable as a game. 

Human society is far more complicated than chess. But theoretically speaking if you ever had enough data you could always produce the best outcome. But you’ll never get enough data to even come close. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Human society is far more complicated than chess. But theoretically speaking if you ever had enough data you could always produce the best outcome. But you’ll never get enough data to even come close. 

I see, and von Mises and Hayek would likely agree with you. But what if computational powers get so vast in the next one hundred years as to prompt, never mind the singularity, but near-conscious machines themselves?

IOW, assume that the premise is correct and there's just enough data to manage the economy. Where is that data most likely to fail and how? That's what I'm questioning. I guess I was in a sci-fi mood last night.

I was not, indeed, drunk or Friday Nighting as @Snorkelson has suggested, though I can see why he might ask that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

 But what if computational powers get so vast in the next one hundred years as to prompt, never mind the singularity, but near-conscious machines themselves?

 

In that case, Skynet and Judgment Day! Your question becomes moot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

In that case, Skynet and Judgment Day! Your question becomes moot. 

Heh. I am not familiar with either reference, thankfully!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

My question, not explained well, will be what in the future will we nationalize and set, at a government level, wages/prices/production for and how will that work? What secondary markets will arise because the algorithm, while powerful, will never be completely effective? This will require two things for the listener/reader to predict:

1) The industry nationalized

2) Where the models will fail in their prediction

3) Where we will override accurate algorithms to institute "fairness" or "justness" into the game (think of underwear, men's and women's, in Russia)?

Just a thought experiment that requires a few steps. Perhaps I expected the OP to be more quickly followed into the rabbit hole. Happy speculating!

I just want to point out the possibility that this might come from the right. IMO Trump has himself been laying the groundwork for this.

To me socialism is socialism is socialism regardless of whether it comes from R or D.

Given that I will go with:

1. Steel, auto or media/tech, in that order.

2. Which model? Nationalization rules out Hayek automatically, no? Marx fails as a model from the beginning.

3. This will happen immediately and everywhere, and I'd imagine it will be described as the very cause for the actions described. Again see Trump's own repeated statements about "fairness."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I just want to point out the possibility that this might come from the right. IMO Trump has himself been laying the groundwork for this.

To me socialism is socialism is socialism regardless of whether it comes from R or D.

Given that I will go with:

1. Steel, auto or media/tech, in that order.

2. Which model? Nationalization rules out Hayek automatically, no? Marx fails as a model from the beginning.

3. This will happen immediately and everywhere, and I'd imagine it will be described as the very cause for the actions described. Again see Trump's own repeated statements about "fairness."

1. Absolutely. Or banking, even.

2. This may very well come from the right, which does not rule out Hayek. He viewed the left/right paradigm regarding state control of the economy as false, and devised a new line of:

state control of the economy____________________________________________________________free market.

3. That's pretty bold. I don't think it'll do that. I think there will be a decree of creep and that "necessity" instead of "fairness" will be the justification. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I see, and von Mises and Hayek would likely agree with you. But what if computational powers get so vast in the next one hundred years as to prompt, never mind the singularity, but near-conscious machines themselves?

IOW, assume that the premise is correct and there's just enough data to manage the economy. Where is that data most likely to fail and how? That's what I'm questioning. I guess I was in a sci-fi mood last night.

I was not, indeed, drunk or Friday Nighting as @Snorkelson has suggested, though I can see why he might ask that. 

It’s not a matter of if computers will become self aware, but when. Our relationship won’t be like terminator 2 (Skynet/judgement day robot vs human war) but more like our relationship with pests. Largely we ignore them (ants, mice, flies) unless they are in our way, in which case we will obliterate them without regard and go on with our business. I really think humans are destined to destroy themselves, or will basically become like the Borg in Star Trek, part flesh, part machine, exploring space consuming everything in our path. It will be a resource driven economy as resources become more scarce. 

Then the world will flood, and the remaining humans will reside on a cargo ship until Kevin Costner with gills shows up and leads them to land. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Snorkelson said:

It’s not a matter of if computers will become self aware, but when. Our relationship won’t be like terminator 2 (Skynet/judgement day robot vs human war) but more like our relationship with pests. Largely we ignore them (ants, mice, flies) unless they are in our way, in which case we will obliterate them without regard and go on with our business. I really think humans are destined to destroy themselves, or will basically become like the Borg in Star Trek, part flesh, part machine, exploring space consuming everything in our path. It will be a resource driven economy as resources become more scarce. 

Then the world will flood, and the remaining humans will reside on a cargo ship until Kevin Costner with gills shows up and leads them to land. 

Whoa. There we go. Let's get to real heart of it.

Waterworld. Excellent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

Whoa. There we go. Let's get to real heart of it.

Waterworld. Excellent. 

Just like the scientist in China that used crisper to alter dna, someone will code a self aware computer. Like Jane in in the Enders game series, it could very well reside in the cloud. The question to ponder is how do we react? Does an artificial being that can think for itself have rights? I think therefore I am? If we make self aware robots to be our butlers, maids, workers, at what point are we exploiting a race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snorkelson said:

Just like the scientist in China that used crisper to alter dna, someone will code a self aware computer. Like Jane in in the Enders game series, it could very well reside in the cloud. The question to ponder is how do we react? Does an artificial being that can think for itself have rights? I think therefore I am? If we make self aware robots to be our butlers, maids, workers, at what point are we exploiting a race?

I agree these are serious questions, but the reason I didn't introduce them is because I was shooting for more of the moral bump in the road that will come with this increase in knowledge and computing power -- the question between state control and capitalism of economies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

I agree these are serious questions, but the reason I didn't introduce them is because I was shooting for more of the moral bump in the road that will come with this increase in knowledge and computing power -- the question between state control and capitalism of economies.

To keep using movie themes, it will be like demolition man. “Now all the restaurants are Taco Bell” will be “now all our jobs are like working for amazon.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hot Diggity Dog said:

Some things must die so others may live.

:let go:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rockaction said:

TL;DR

Assume that pure socialism kind of works in certain aspects of industries. Where does it work efficiently and where does it fail?

The answer is as always, in art.

AI will not be able to create / produce art that is subversive enough to obviate the desire for more / truly subversive art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't believe there will ever be a drone economy. As it has proven in other socialized economic systems and presently ruining democratic capitalism, primacy is too vital an human element for it not to devolve any attempt at a bought-off redundant populace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The algorithms are flawed and the AI will always be coded with bias.  

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, rockaction said:

3. That's pretty bold. I don't think it'll do that. I think there will be a decree of creep and that "necessity" instead of "fairness" will be the justification. 

think the FFA used to do more intellectual discussion, and I just notice that from the older threads. People aren't so interested in that anymore. It might be the folks engaged here or it might be the nature of our culture, I'm not sure.

I don't think the threat of collectivism is coming from the left right now, despite all the table pounding about socialism and lady squads. I could go on and on about what Marx, socialism and communism have done to the world, but just because that was 20th century doesn't mean the next season will be about what last season was about.

So this went on this weekend, a "National Conservatism" convention.

As someone at NYRB put this, this feels like retrofitting an ideology into Trumpismo, which I kind of agree with.

But IMO what we often saw - again IMO - in 2015-16 was Republicans/conservatives wrapping themselves in language of resentment and disenfranchisement like we have traditionally seen from the left. For instance think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. We see here it on this board all the time, of so beat upon, oh the suppression inherent in the system, etc. This to me naturally flowed and blended into justifications for using national, imperial-executive power to gain social ends, or nationalism. Tucker Carlson has been effusive on this on his show.

Quote

Alas, Deneen went on to support virtually all the same policy prescriptions as everyone else at the conference. Anti-individualism seems to be the unifying theory of the ascendant political right. If government infringements on personal liberty are the price of achieving good outcomes, conservatives are more than happy to pay it.

The New Conservative Nationalism Is About Subverting Individual Liberty

- I don't really think "fairness" and "necessity" are separable here for this nationalism. Fairness is considered a necessity. Basically the idea is the need to protect culture, to protect national identity, to prevent Americans from being overrun by cultural and demographic change and America itself from being abused by allies. Trump is replete with this fairness theme, and "justness" though he does not use that word, and that is the underlying basis of what is going on here.

And I certainly hope and expect this will not happen but I took your query to be a hypothetical, "if..." and so if so then that's how I see it playing out. The only "creep" as you put it will be if the nationalists decide to coopt some of the traditional liberal/progressive themes in areas like health care, housing, education, and debt relief to expand their populism into socialist areas. The nihilism that accompanies Trump everywhere and which he employs certainly makes this a possibility IMO.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

think the FFA used to do more intellectual discussion, and I just notice that from the older threads. People aren't so interested in that anymore. It might be the folks engaged here or it might be the nature of our culture, I'm not sure.

Indeed it did. We used to do it on the front page. It got as many hits then as now, and simply irritated the folks who used the front page for riffing on disc golf and other things (nothing wrong with disc golf, just saying here...diff'rent strokes, diff'rent folks)

To address, however, the NYRB and the future of conservatism would take about ten pages. It is simply not enough to cite the New York Review Of Books and Reason as anything but a radical leftist and rightist critique of the mainstream intellectual tack that conservatism is taking. The NYRB and Reason are and have had cottage industries in predicting the anti-individualist impulse both left and right of the conservative movement, and have done so for a long time. It is easy, and I mean this with due respect, to find these critiques and then go forth with a worldview and an article cobbling together the impulses laid to bear. What are these impulses each entity hates, respectively? They are:

  1. Nation states
  2. Economic collectivism vs. economic individualism

But witness the eras of 1992-1998 and the rise and fall of Gingrich within the party. You'll find the same complaints about Israel and Eastern European nation-state love coming from the left, and look at the criticisms coming from the right of the Weekly Standard, back when Bill Kristol couldn't find a good defense against nationalized health care. What is required is to have been there; to have heard the same cries of betrayal from both individualists left and right and to realize that this also happened in 1960-68, when the right was accused of looking at, respectively:

  1. Nation states
  2. Economic collectivism vs. economic individualism

From the domino theory of nation-states to the economic ramifications of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and on and on...ad nauseam.

It's the same SID. Conservatives, drawing new lines, will always face criticism from the left for subverting the primacy of the individual to the nation-state and the economic right will critique its non-isolationist foreign policy and its economic purity.

Look at the party platforms, I say. Look at the debates. There is where you will find the threats. 

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The only "creep" as you put it will be if the nationalists decide to coopt some of the traditional liberal/progressive themes in areas like health care, housing, education, and debt relief to expand their populism into socialist areas.

Some have said that the only way socialist programs can get supported in government is when conservatives propose them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Markets and capitalism build better societies than central planning does for the same reason that evolution builds better brains than human engineering does. Coming up with relatively simple algorithms that work locally ... and then letting them run and combine and fit together on a large scale in ways that no genius could have specifically predicted ... is the better recipe for success when the complexity and volume of relevant information is beyond the capability of any conscious designer to grasp.

But in each case, improved technology and information processing could change things.

The best chess players nowadays are computers. Maybe someday the best economic organizers will be too -- better not only than human planners, but possibly better than markets as well.

This book review provokes some thoughts along those lines.

(It is perhaps not a coincidence that the software most impressive at games like chess, go, etc., was developed by a process resembling evolution more than traditional programming.)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Markets and capitalism build better societies than central planning does for the same reason that evolution builds better brains than human engineering does. Coming up with relatively simple algorithms that work locally ... and then letting them run and combine and fit together on a large scale in ways that no genius could have specifically predicted ... is the better recipe for success when the complexity and volume of relevant information is beyond the capability of any conscious designer to grasp.

But in each case, improved technology and information processing could change things.

The best chess players nowadays are computers. Maybe someday the best economic organizers will be too -- better not only than human planners, but possibly better than markets as well.

This book review provokes some thoughts along those lines.

(It is perhaps not a coincidence that the software most impressive at games like chess, go, etc., was developed by a process resembling evolution more than traditional programming.)

Yes, those two links are really is where I was going with this.

What I was wondering is that imagine AlphaGo (the second link article subject) was able to use small, localized data sets and extrapolate out how they would fit into a giant economy. This requires a lot of computing power (referenced in the cybernetic portion of SSI's article) and the ability to use linear (first link) and intuitive (second link) programming effectively and on a large scale, often based in extrapolation.

But what industries or functions, I wonder as an exercise, would be the toughest to quantify? Which ones would have the biggest impulse towards social engineering and production/wage/price setting in the name of "justice"? What will they be? How will they arise? That's the question I was looking to answer.

Again, for every algorithm there will be some sort of failure, where will the bodegas emerge and what will they sell. ?

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

There was a good socialism thread dating to like 2009 or so, it’s not even in the archives now. Too bad.

Yeah, I thought of this thread the night before we were sort of deluged with socialism threads and this takes as a given that the algorithm is smoothed out enough to work without mass purges or starvation. In other words, both crimes against humanity and efficiency have been mitigated by the new understanding of data.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2019 at 10:19 AM, Henry Ford said:

I think you should read the Stainless Steel Rat books.  You’d like Jim DiGrizz. 

I missed this in my first go-round of reading the comments. Thanks. I looked it up. Sounds cool.

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SaintsInDome2006

I read the entire DeMuth essay in Claremont. It's pretty boilerplate stuff if you've been following the past forty years of conservatism. He says little new, though it's certainly well-written. Nowhere does he propose anything like a departure towards any sort of nationalism that should have people fearful. I simply read it and nodded along, not surprised by any of it. If you read it and have questions about where it's coming from, feel free to ask. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rockaction said:

I missed this in my first go-round of reading the comments. Thanks. I looked it up. Sounds cool.

It’s total schlock sci-fi but it’s fun schlock sci-fi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

It’s total schlock sci-fi but it’s fun schlock sci-fi. 

The brief digging I did brought a Douglas Adams comparison. That's heady company.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

The brief digging I did brought a Douglas Adams comparison. That's heady company.  

I’d say closer to the “Another Fine Myth” series by Robert Asprin, but it’s not dissimilar in tone. 

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rockaction said:

@SaintsInDome2006

I read the entire DeMuth essay in Claremont. It's pretty boilerplate stuff if you've been following the past forty years of conservatism. He says little new, though it's certainly well-written. Nowhere does he propose anything like a departure towards any sort of nationalism that should have people fearful. I simply read it and nodded along, not surprised by any of it. If you read it and have questions about where it's coming from, feel free to ask. 

It's an awful lot of words, but I don't think it's conservatism. It's a conservative trying to twist his legitimately big brain into nationalism. I see a couple things: 1. why golly y'all there's nothing wrong with the administrative state, it just needs to be an effective administrative state and one aimed towards nationalist aims, and 2. Congress can be effective if it just does what the executive branch tells it to do. Plus yes the boilerplate about "identity and purpose".

And I'll cop to getting this part from NYRB but yes this feels like retrofitting Trump with an ideology. Oh, it's not nationalism (stigma) it's national conservatism then is it? Aside from the cynical quality of it (especially considering who's doing it here) is that the man at the center and the cause of it is himself anti-ideological. People may wonder what I or anyone rational can get out of this forum but one thing I've seen is smart people from all over the country doing just this since 2015. "Making sense of some crazy bull#### Donald Trump just said" is a full time occupation for some around here, except for those periods, like now, where it becomes practically impossible. But hey on they'll carry anyway.

And I'd say yeah let's have this convo without mention of T.R.U.M.P but let's face it none of this is happening, like the newfound interests in the horrors of socialism (of which I've written plenty here), because of Trump and because Trump says it must be so.

I can also tell you if you take it out of all this context that a careful reading of history shows that whether purposefully or by sheer entropy or vortex that such mad ultimatums as 'Choose ye alle: Nationalism or Socialism/Communism" is exactly how people who wish to destroy democracy do it, see Spain (where I have family who can attest to this and yes they chose the Church), Italy, Spain, Argentina and Germany (twice no less).

It's not about the programs, it's about the freedom of the people to choose the programs. If you want to revolve back to conservatism then revolve back to this: centralized control over property and commerce ultimately leads back to circumscription of individual liberty. It doesn't really matter to me if that road is lain by Bernard Sanders or Donald J. Trump. Check your Hayek for that.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to break down each paragraph and find a corollary to a conservative position since 1960. I guarantee you I'll be able to. This isn't a retrofitting; if anything, anything, then it's a new synthesis, but it's not even that. 

This has been in the water since Buckley; DeMuth is not reinventing the wheel here, nor is he even making it non-standard.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an addendum, that ending in the piece is pretty open ended don't you think? Oh the populist dreams will surely come crashing down in a debt crisis, whether it be left or right generated. Oooookaaay, but when then? He says we will have to choose between tax-burdens or I take it austerity. And therefore what, how does that end? It can end more than one way as I'm sure you'll concede. It can end one way where people will disclaim they were ever involved in such a conflagration, or it could end in an embrace where facts and theories are twisted to justify and whatever it takes to protect the edifice that originally created it.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

This has been in the water since Buckley; DeMuth is not reinventing the wheel here, nor is he even making it non-standard.  

Then why the need for the new branding, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Then why the need for the new branding, eh?

Because the amalgamation is different. It's really a very astute essay from an intellectual perspective about how Trump won, not just what to do with the fact that he did.  

Seriously, I'd heard all of the bullet points for years. Give me some time and I'll cite the intellectual fathers and mothers of each claim he's making.  

Edited by rockaction
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2019 at 10:34 AM, rockaction said:

Will we then that data

Has anyone answered this? :lol: 

Sorry, the phrasing just crossed me as funny.

Good thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2019 at 6:12 PM, VandyMan said:

Has anyone answered this? :lol: 

Sorry, the phrasing just crossed me as funny.

Good thread.

Thanks. The phrasing is indeed all garbled to hell. I think I meant to say, "Will we then take that data..."

Edited by rockaction
I like the word indeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2019 at 5:23 PM, rockaction said:

Yes, those two links are really is where I was going with this.

What I was wondering is that imagine AlphaGo (the second link article subject) was able to use small, localized data sets and extrapolate out how they would fit into a giant economy. This requires a lot of computing power (referenced in the cybernetic portion of SSI's article) and the ability to use linear (first link) and intuitive (second link) programming effectively and on a large scale, often based in extrapolation.

But what industries or functions, I wonder as an exercise, would be the toughest to quantify? Which ones would have the biggest impulse towards social engineering and production/wage/price setting in the name of "justice"? What will they be? How will they arise? That's the question I was looking to answer.

Again, for every algorithm there will be some sort of failure, where will the bodegas emerge and what will they sell. ?

I’m not totally sure I understand the focus here in terms of the algorithmic effect. I guess I see three different tracts:

1) general algorithmic advances and control of all functions in society

2 ) algorithmic advances and control by government in the name of systematize and making things all things as efficient as possible

3) algorithmic advances and control by government specifically in the name of justice

and actually maybe I just answered my own question.  Are you saying that premise number 2 above would be trying to achieve justice in the sense that algorithms and ai control would be a way of optimizing the process of taking from each according to his means and giving to each according to his needs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Long Ball Larry said:

I’m not totally sure I understand the focus here in terms of the algorithmic effect. I guess I see three different tracts:

1) general algorithmic advances and control of all functions in society

2 ) algorithmic advances and control by government in the name of systematize and making things all things as efficient as possible

3) algorithmic advances and control by government specifically in the name of justice

and actually maybe I just answered my own question.  Are you saying that premise number 2 above would be trying to achieve justice in the sense that algorithms and ai control would be a way of optimizing the process of taking from each according to his means and giving to each according to his needs?

For the bolded, yes. 

I think you understand this and have systematized way, way better than even I can.  I'm talking about general algorithms, advances subsequently controlled by government in the name of justice. 

You've got it nailed. 

Instead of getting all hifalutin, I probably should have asked. What can't machines foresee? What do you think will be an unaddressed need in the future?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

For the bolded, yes. 

I think you understand this and have systematized way, way better than even I can.  I'm talking about general algorithms, advances subsequently controlled by government in the name of justice. 

You've got it nailed. 

Instead of getting all hifalutin, I probably should have asked. What can't machines foresee? What do you think will be an unaddressed need in the future?  

Well there are probably two ways to think about the unaddressed.  One is things that we know now that machines can’t do well and the other is new needs that will result that from a more algorithmically advanced society.

i think that anything around human emotion and wellness is probably a significant place.  I’ve read about this before, but there is a long wapo article today about content moderators in the Philippines for Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.  They have to review some of the most heinous social media posts out there (which I guess are tagged by algorithm) and decide whether they need to be removed, flagged or allowed.  Now this creates a tremendous psychological strain and the companies are supposed to be providing counseling, although there are disputes about how well they are doing and really there is probably a limit to how much help they can get anyway.

so anything that truly involves the human condition is probably where to start.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.