We automate decision making. I think we should be the ones to develop new methods of analysis.
Most of us work doing software that, in the long run, privileges getting the most of the money (and resources)from the surrounding environment.
What if one of us develop an ERP that accounts for enviromental destruction, contamination, levels of greed (inequality)? with the idea in mind that a corporation should "survive", and not grow until it eats everything around it?
Just an idea, fellow /progriders/. I'm high.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-30 9:15
There's nothing more scary than tiny insect like robots that can eat anything and are capable of efficient reproduction.
Name:
OP2012-01-30 9:21
Yup. Corporations and Traders behave like locusts.
But, they work that way because the software that they use give them this perspective.
And there is not any other choice. They effectively are limited by the software ('framework of mind') they use.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-30 9:59
>>1
We've already changed the world. And we will continue to do so.
First one to create an AGI wins and takes all. There is no second place. Losers are annihilated from the face of the planet.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-30 10:07
what is an AGI? ??????
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-30 12:32
No. The free market is the perfect decision making robot, and it's the only one to account for what the people WANT. Let's use our programming knowledge to produce something that we don't already have.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-30 12:50
>>6
The market is too limited. Because resources != money. You can't eat money, you can't power a car with checks or bonds. The market worries only on monetary value, and that is a distorted measure.
So, we must consider a system that takes account of more variables.
Besides, currently there is no such thing as "free market"
Name:
72012-01-30 13:08
Here,a good rant from a leading company at risk management that supports my point (not exactly my point but the idea that one variable is too little). See the page 32.
>>9'
>Anonymous is highlighted inside code tags
>wat
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-30 18:43
>>6
But people are idiots , and easily manipulated by marketing to spend their money on certain products in a way that doesn't provide a indication of what they truly want.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-30 20:30
>>11
They don't even need marketing to confuse them. All external influneces aside, consumers would STILL regularly do retarded shit.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-30 21:16
Only a robotopia would set the world free, while the robots produce everything for us for free, we can do whatever we like and chill out or something. Of course some people in power needs an adjustment as they might incite a little chaos early on
>>14
Not if robots build more robots and so on. No free cars because of economic and physical limitations and a few artificial monopolies, however some of these issues can be lessened or completly lifted. >>13
I'll give you a better example (from my point of view, maybe not yours): Substrate Independent Minds(SIM) and Molecular Nanotechnology(MNT). That means the only problems remaining would be resources and energy, however with MNT you get much faster expansion into space and mining. The local problems with SIM would be the speed of light limit and some energy/time limits. Both of them can be "transcended" if you realize that if SIMs actually work - that is, if you retain your consciousness after a digital substitution, then that has severe consequences about what the world's ontology is, and that also tells you exactly how to defeat even those limits - your only final limits are only those imposed by the Church-Turing Thesis (I'm not going to go into details as to why this is as the discussion will probably be too long, but I can link the relevant papers if you're curious why). This is obviously better than a "robotopia" because it brings you as close as possible to a turing-emulable self-aware generally intelligent agents final limits as opposed to merely having an average lifespan living a leisurely life pursuing a small amount of hobbies and research.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-31 4:02
>>14
The people who own the robots will soon realize that while they're getting all the money of the world, the money becomes worthless as the robots would have made everything they need already.
So the economy would crash, and the people who own the robots either handout food and stuff for free or become forced to by governments. There probably will remain a job like council duty so it won't appear that robots decide everything.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-31 4:16
ITT: kids who mostly play around with toy languages
A program to take surrounding resources into account? With the IDEA that it should survive? And how exactly would you go about doing that? It never occured to you that a HUMAN first has to decide what is "good" in this regard in order to make the fucking program? And we humans don't have a clue about such things. So fuck off.
>>19
I don't think our values would converge in something like Elizer's Coherent Extrapolated Volition, however I do know enough about what my values are and what they are not, and the same goes for most people, too bad not everyone has compatible values so humanity probably has divergent goals, but hopefully not enough for too many wars in the future...
>>19
the goal would be dynamic equilibrium. that kind of software is a glorified homeostat.
the goal should be a fuzzy 'state' composed of loose ranges values for many variables. How to determine such ranges? Only by experimenting.
A smart guy called Stafford Beer developed a model called Viable System Model designed to search and mantain such balanced goal. The keyword there is VIABLE, in a sense that goes beyond pure money.
if (time(&t) == -1)
return 0;
return localtime(&t);
}
int main(void)
{
struct tm *tm = gettime();
if (!tm) {
fprintf(stderr, "Unable to retrieve time\n");
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
if (tm->tm_wday == 2) {
printf("Today the Bananas chase the Indians, and shove their "
"willies into their bums when they catch them.\n");
} else {
printf("Today the Indians are safe from the Bananas in "
"Pajamas.\n");
}
return 0;
}