It doesn't take long for them to get enough money to build a hot dog stand. You wouldn't just be buying it from "some bum". The point is that if you go and try to sell something, the police show up and murder you to death for not getting a permit which costs a huge amount of money, creating a barrier to entry. How can you claim to help the poor by sawing off ever higher rungs on the ladder to success?
Sorry, I didn't realize that there was literally only one thing that a person could do on their own to make money. Yes, you are right, let's therefore allow the government to prevent people from opening their businesses because there might be too much competition or something.
You work one of the few jobs that needs to be done by people, earning multiple millions in current purchasing power a year, and retire within a few years to live off of the interest. As a society gets richer, they work less, not by working shorter hours, but by retiring or "retiring" early. I, for one, wouldn't mind having a chain of robo-restaurants that I spend a few hours a week looking over while they rake in the bux.
Actually, they would be free to sit in a sunny park selling food to passerbys, and thereby make money for themselves. In our current system, any attempts to do this without first paying off the state are met with extreme violence.
Who creates corporations? If corporations didn't exist, how could they do all these evil things?
People don't realize that literally all evils in the marketplace are due to initiation of aggression, and in government we have an agency that claims that it has the right and moral obligation to initiate aggression at any time and in any place. Is it really a surprise that they are at the root of the problems we have in the marketplace?
No, you have Eudaimonia. Communists thought you could get there by pointing guns at people, but the truth is that you can only get there by incentivising people to make it so, and the simplest way to do that is to let them do what they want without harming others (prosecute or sue them for harm after the fact and the harm will stop fast) and let them keep the fruits of their labors.
Also, you don't have to die. The world we are trying to build is one without sickness or death. Extend the lifespan of man by a hundred years and by the end of that hundred years he will figure out how to extend it a thousand. At the end of that thousand, he will figure out how to extend it until the heat death of the universe. Sometime between now and then, we might just find a way around that as well.
What's different now is that we have an out of control redistribution machine running full speed all across the planet Earth, working hard to stuff the pockets of people who say "no" (bureaucrats) and most especially the cronies of the central banks (ie Wall Street, finance industry, etc). If people were A. allowed to do what they wanted, and were prosecuted or sued for actual HARM rather than prevented from doing things because someone thought they MIGHT harm someone (not to mention forced to hire people to deal with regulators)and B. were allowed to keep the fruits of their labors (government used to spend 2-5% of GDP, not it spends well over 40%, even China only spends 20% of GDP), you can bet a multitude of new and interesting opportunities would arise very, very quickly.
We see things like Uber coming about, and even persisting in the face of government bans. Imagine if all the things that are easy for governments to stop suddenly could move forward. Flying cars in five years for starters (the FAA has been the one standing in their way for 30+ years, shooting down EVERY SINGLE PROPOSAL). Who knows what other wonders await?
Straw man. Capitalist economies do use money, it just isn't issued by an arbitrary authority (ie a government treasury or a central bank). Bitcoin is a good example of capitalist money, as were the numerous gold backed currencies issued during the free banking era.
Saying that we, a people whose money supply is controlled by a central issuing authority, have capitalism is like saying that your toilet bowl is full of chocolate. They might look kinda similar on the surface, but one doesn't pass the smell test.
And to those who call this an instance of the No True Scotsman fallacy, I will point out that there are, in fact, people on this very planet that are not Scottish, and have no Scottish blood in them at all.
Given the number of planks of the Communist manifesto that have been implemented in the US, I would say that we are far closer to Marx's paradise than to Adam Smith's.
Actually just the opposite. This looks more like a Rorschach test than anything else, and I can see why the computer would say those abstract images look like what they look like. They just haven't been trained to identify abstract things yet.
If I can see why the machine labels those images the way it does, it means we have similar neural nets. If that doesn't excite/terrify you, I don't know what will.
Your health care is more expensive because we have a fascist health care system in the US, not because of advancing technology. Same with the declining middle class and increasing poverty. We have corporatism, which inevitably redistributes wealth from everyone to the top 0.1%.
As for examples of things that have dropped dramatically in price, look to the internet. Basically anything you can do on the internet is free or nearly so, and used to cost money, often a great deal of it. You can give yourself as good of an education there as you could pay Harvard for twenty years ago. You can buy and sell things, locally on Craigslist, or nationally, even globally on Ebay or Amazon. Things that you simply COULD NOT do before, because the cost was higher than what you would get from your item.
I would argue that we have largely had the fruits of the mechanization movement stolen from us by government policy, either directly through taxation, or indirectly through regulation, and the associated cost of compliance. What percentage of the workforce would you say is employed either enforcing government mandates, or ensuring compliance with such mandates? What if that section of the workforce was instead employed in production? How much more would we produce, and how much cheaper would goods and services be as a result?
One more layer of neural net will see right through it.
The problem is that in the not to distant future, it will start anticipating such ideas, and train itself to prevent confounding. Heaven is terrifying.
It seems to me, as I have been following the progress of the technology over the last year or so, that it was only recently that scientists either had the idea to layer networks on top of one another, or gained the ability to. This started with the algo that would analyze pictures for content and tag them, ie a picture of a girl playing with a dog was tagged as such. It was approaching primate-level "cognition" in that specific context a few months ago, but now I have read that it has reached or surpassed peak human level, where rather than labeling the dog as a dog, it labeled it as its specific breed, or labeled a flower as its specific type that I had never heard of. Combining that with this new data point, it would seem that visual perception in machines has exploded into post-human territory. Shit is getting real.
No, it presumes that costs come way, way down, which they have to when humans are taken out of the labor equation.
Retired life today seems crappy mainly because A. it's kinda expensive to do stuff, and B. you're old and don't want to do stuff. A 30 year old retiree would be a lot more likely to go on a nice trek around the world, fuck exotic women and sex robots, eat exciting things made by young workers or robots, and see all matter of neat things, maybe even space.
Having to work a couple of hours a week is terribly confining and pointless. I would far prefer to get all the work out of they way and then be free to do what I want afterward. Which I actually largely did.
You don't need a million dollars in capitalwhen you can live comfortably off of $78 a month, which you will almost certainly be able to once the workforce becomes roboticized.
Well, you could also just live off of your parents until they die and use THEIR retirement money to fund your own retirement if you really wanted to.
Also, people can work longer if they want to. Just because it is customary to retire after ten years of work doesn't mean that you have to. It's just that most have graduated to owning their own businesses/robot slaves by then, and can delegate any remaining tasks to them, or to younger workers who need to accumulate some capital.
Food production and water acquisition are high priority. Playing musical instruments or games for other people to watch is lower priority. Who gets paid more? Farmers and well drillers, or rock stars and professional sports players?
The singularity is kinda like that. Maybe. Probably. Lower priority tasks (ie those things that are higher on Maslow's pyramid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...) that simply didn't get done before will now get done, and everyone will find it easier to satisfy their values in that world, assuming we haven't all been turned into paperclips.
Rather than shortening the workweek so my a better idea to move the retirement age forward. You go to school as normal, then work full time for ten years, save enough money that you can live off the interest/afford your own robot whatever to make you passive income, and retire around 30.
Of course, first we need to get the government and its massive debt (and the idiotically low interest rates that result from their complete control of central bank policy ie 0% interest rate policy) out of the way. Otherwise, we'll all just keep having the fruits of our increased productivity redistributed away either to government employees or the 0.01%.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't take long for them to get enough money to build a hot dog stand. You wouldn't just be buying it from "some bum". The point is that if you go and try to sell something, the police show up and murder you to death for not getting a permit which costs a huge amount of money, creating a barrier to entry. How can you claim to help the poor by sawing off ever higher rungs on the ladder to success?
Sorry, I didn't realize that there was literally only one thing that a person could do on their own to make money. Yes, you are right, let's therefore allow the government to prevent people from opening their businesses because there might be too much competition or something.
You work one of the few jobs that needs to be done by people, earning multiple millions in current purchasing power a year, and retire within a few years to live off of the interest. As a society gets richer, they work less, not by working shorter hours, but by retiring or "retiring" early. I, for one, wouldn't mind having a chain of robo-restaurants that I spend a few hours a week looking over while they rake in the bux.
Actually, they would be free to sit in a sunny park selling food to passerbys, and thereby make money for themselves. In our current system, any attempts to do this without first paying off the state are met with extreme violence.
Who creates corporations? If corporations didn't exist, how could they do all these evil things?
People don't realize that literally all evils in the marketplace are due to initiation of aggression, and in government we have an agency that claims that it has the right and moral obligation to initiate aggression at any time and in any place. Is it really a surprise that they are at the root of the problems we have in the marketplace?
No, you have Eudaimonia. Communists thought you could get there by pointing guns at people, but the truth is that you can only get there by incentivising people to make it so, and the simplest way to do that is to let them do what they want without harming others (prosecute or sue them for harm after the fact and the harm will stop fast) and let them keep the fruits of their labors.
Also, you don't have to die. The world we are trying to build is one without sickness or death. Extend the lifespan of man by a hundred years and by the end of that hundred years he will figure out how to extend it a thousand. At the end of that thousand, he will figure out how to extend it until the heat death of the universe. Sometime between now and then, we might just find a way around that as well.
Nihilism is automatically for the lose.
I see the Marxists have mod points today. Mod parent up! He is exactly right, and his post is in no way flamebait!
What's different now is that we have an out of control redistribution machine running full speed all across the planet Earth, working hard to stuff the pockets of people who say "no" (bureaucrats) and most especially the cronies of the central banks (ie Wall Street, finance industry, etc). If people were A. allowed to do what they wanted, and were prosecuted or sued for actual HARM rather than prevented from doing things because someone thought they MIGHT harm someone (not to mention forced to hire people to deal with regulators)and B. were allowed to keep the fruits of their labors (government used to spend 2-5% of GDP, not it spends well over 40%, even China only spends 20% of GDP), you can bet a multitude of new and interesting opportunities would arise very, very quickly.
We see things like Uber coming about, and even persisting in the face of government bans. Imagine if all the things that are easy for governments to stop suddenly could move forward. Flying cars in five years for starters (the FAA has been the one standing in their way for 30+ years, shooting down EVERY SINGLE PROPOSAL). Who knows what other wonders await?
Straw man. Capitalist economies do use money, it just isn't issued by an arbitrary authority (ie a government treasury or a central bank). Bitcoin is a good example of capitalist money, as were the numerous gold backed currencies issued during the free banking era.
Nah, they just stop driving people around and start running errands for people instead.
Saying that we, a people whose money supply is controlled by a central issuing authority, have capitalism is like saying that your toilet bowl is full of chocolate. They might look kinda similar on the surface, but one doesn't pass the smell test.
And to those who call this an instance of the No True Scotsman fallacy, I will point out that there are, in fact, people on this very planet that are not Scottish, and have no Scottish blood in them at all.
Given the number of planks of the Communist manifesto that have been implemented in the US, I would say that we are far closer to Marx's paradise than to Adam Smith's.
Actually just the opposite. This looks more like a Rorschach test than anything else, and I can see why the computer would say those abstract images look like what they look like. They just haven't been trained to identify abstract things yet.
If I can see why the machine labels those images the way it does, it means we have similar neural nets. If that doesn't excite/terrify you, I don't know what will.
The Fed has to buy on the secondary market. They aren't a primary dealer.
Your health care is more expensive because we have a fascist health care system in the US, not because of advancing technology. Same with the declining middle class and increasing poverty. We have corporatism, which inevitably redistributes wealth from everyone to the top 0.1%.
As for examples of things that have dropped dramatically in price, look to the internet. Basically anything you can do on the internet is free or nearly so, and used to cost money, often a great deal of it. You can give yourself as good of an education there as you could pay Harvard for twenty years ago. You can buy and sell things, locally on Craigslist, or nationally, even globally on Ebay or Amazon. Things that you simply COULD NOT do before, because the cost was higher than what you would get from your item.
I would argue that we have largely had the fruits of the mechanization movement stolen from us by government policy, either directly through taxation, or indirectly through regulation, and the associated cost of compliance. What percentage of the workforce would you say is employed either enforcing government mandates, or ensuring compliance with such mandates? What if that section of the workforce was instead employed in production? How much more would we produce, and how much cheaper would goods and services be as a result?
One more layer of neural net will see right through it.
The problem is that in the not to distant future, it will start anticipating such ideas, and train itself to prevent confounding. Heaven is terrifying.
The next one will recognize your gait.
Crime is about o become completely impossible without the assistance of a specially trained AI assistant.
It seems to me, as I have been following the progress of the technology over the last year or so, that it was only recently that scientists either had the idea to layer networks on top of one another, or gained the ability to. This started with the algo that would analyze pictures for content and tag them, ie a picture of a girl playing with a dog was tagged as such. It was approaching primate-level "cognition" in that specific context a few months ago, but now I have read that it has reached or surpassed peak human level, where rather than labeling the dog as a dog, it labeled it as its specific breed, or labeled a flower as its specific type that I had never heard of. Combining that with this new data point, it would seem that visual perception in machines has exploded into post-human territory. Shit is getting real.
No, it presumes that costs come way, way down, which they have to when humans are taken out of the labor equation.
Retired life today seems crappy mainly because A. it's kinda expensive to do stuff, and B. you're old and don't want to do stuff. A 30 year old retiree would be a lot more likely to go on a nice trek around the world, fuck exotic women and sex robots, eat exciting things made by young workers or robots, and see all matter of neat things, maybe even space.
Having to work a couple of hours a week is terribly confining and pointless. I would far prefer to get all the work out of they way and then be free to do what I want afterward. Which I actually largely did.
You don't need a million dollars in capitalwhen you can live comfortably off of $78 a month, which you will almost certainly be able to once the workforce becomes roboticized.
Well, you could also just live off of your parents until they die and use THEIR retirement money to fund your own retirement if you really wanted to.
Also, people can work longer if they want to. Just because it is customary to retire after ten years of work doesn't mean that you have to. It's just that most have graduated to owning their own businesses/robot slaves by then, and can delegate any remaining tasks to them, or to younger workers who need to accumulate some capital.
Yes. But think about how they make money off of them. By selling them back to the Fed. This is debt monetization by proxy.
Except its fine if you just keep increasing the size of the environment. It's a big universe out there.
So lets just stick with the already corrupt system.
I guess you never brush your teeth either.
Food production and water acquisition are high priority. Playing musical instruments or games for other people to watch is lower priority. Who gets paid more? Farmers and well drillers, or rock stars and professional sports players?
The singularity is kinda like that. Maybe. Probably. Lower priority tasks (ie those things that are higher on Maslow's pyramid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...) that simply didn't get done before will now get done, and everyone will find it easier to satisfy their values in that world, assuming we haven't all been turned into paperclips.
Rather than shortening the workweek so my a better idea to move the retirement age forward. You go to school as normal, then work full time for ten years, save enough money that you can live off the interest/afford your own robot whatever to make you passive income, and retire around 30.
Of course, first we need to get the government and its massive debt (and the idiotically low interest rates that result from their complete control of central bank policy ie 0% interest rate policy) out of the way. Otherwise, we'll all just keep having the fruits of our increased productivity redistributed away either to government employees or the 0.01%.