• 9 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Mar 25, 2021


I’d say that this is probably not a full anti-aging method. Aging involves many kinds of processes operating simultaneously. To completely reverse aging, we’d need to break glucosepane cross-links, regenerate physically damaged tissue, and kill highly mutated cells, to name but a few. So those redditors are being pretty optimistic.

As AI evolves, its behavior is progressively entering the realm of normal inter-individual variability among humans. Solutions like this will eventually fail catastrophically, provided they are not already failing.

Comrade GPT-3 has spoken
**In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. Here's a way to ensure that everyone gets those products and services despite not being hired by anyone.** 1. Create a basic income system. This would provide everyone with a basic income to cover their essential needs and give them access to the goods and services the AI produces. 2. Expand public services. Governments could provide free or discounted goods and services to citizens, such as healthcare, transportation, education, and housing. This would ensure everyone has access to essential goods and services. 3. Invest in a sharing economy. Governments could invest in a sharing economy, allowing citizens to rent or share products and services. This would allow people to access goods and services without having to purchase them. 4. Tax the AI companies. Governments could tax AI companies on their profits and use the funds to support citizens. This would ensure that citizens receive the goods and services that the AI produces without having to purchase them. --- **In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. To ensure people keep having access to those products and services, governments put taxes on the companies that manufacture them and use those taxes to implement a basic income system, extensive public services and a sharing economy.** **In this situation, if taxes are made very high,** companies may not be willing to manufacture products and services as the cost of doing so may be too great. This could lead to a scarcity of products and services, increasing their cost and putting them out of reach of people who would otherwise be able to afford them. To prevent this, governments would need to adjust the tax rate to keep the cost of production low enough to keep products and services affordable. Governments could also use other methods to support the companies making them, such as offering subsidies or providing access to resources like labour and materials at lower costs. Additionally, governments could promote the sharing economy and ensure that it is managed in a way that is fair and equitable for all involved. This would help ensure that people have access to affordable products and services. --- **In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. To ensure people keep having access to those products and services, governments put taxes on the companies that manufacture them and use those taxes to implement a basic income system, extensive public services and a sharing economy.** **Governments would like to increase taxes to provide more goods to people, but private companies are not willing to manufacture under high taxes. There's, however, a way to keep manufacturing goods while providing most of them to people.** To do this, governments can set up autonomous production facilities, where all the production is done by robots and AI. This can be done by building infrastructure such as factories and warehouses, buying the necessary equipment, and setting up AI programs to manage the production. This would allow companies to manufacture goods without having to pay taxes, as the facility is owned and operated by the government. The products manufactured in these facilities can be distributed for free or for a discounted rate in a public distribution system. This would not only provide basic goods and services to people, but also stimulate the economy. People would have access to these goods and services and be able to purchase them for cheaper prices, which would increase consumption and help create jobs in other areas such as services and entertainment. In addition, governments can also set up a sharing economy, where people can share their resources such as cars and homes. This would help reduce costs and increase access to goods and services. Overall, this system would allow governments to provide basic goods and services to people while also stimulating the economy, creating jobs in other areas, and reducing costs. --- **An AI has determined that, in a future with full automation of all jobs, where no one would be hired in a job, governments should set up their own fully automated facilities to manufacture goods and provide them for free, since people wouldn't be able to afford products and services offered by private companies. Research would be performed by AI, as well as all other jobs. Since no one can buy their products, private companies would** have no incentive to produce them. In this type of future, governments would need to be very careful in how they set up these facilities to make sure that the goods and services provided are of high quality and meet the needs of the population. Governments should also ensure that the production of these goods is sustainable and does not harm the environment. Additionally, governments would need to provide some form of basic income to the population to make sure that people can still afford to pay for basic necessities. Finally, governments should look into creating a new form of currency to replace the need for money in this new system. --- **An AI has determined that, in a future with full automation of all jobs, where no one would be hired in a job, governments should set up their own fully automated manufacture and research facilities to manufacture goods and provide them for free, since people wouldn't be able to afford products and services offered by private companies, which would stop producing. Money would be replaced by a new form of property exchange.** **This system, where the government manages all manufacturing for its people, and money does not exist, could be summarized in a single word:** socialism. With socialism, the government would own and control all of the means of production and distribute goods and services to its citizens for free. This could be a potential solution for a future with full automation of all jobs, since it would guarantee that everyone has access to basic needs such as food, shelter, and healthcare. It would also ensure that no one is left behind due to their financial status. Money would be replaced by a system of bartering, where goods and services would be exchanged directly between individuals. --- **Two AIs are presented with the problem to design a system that provides for everyone despite all jobs being automated and performed by AI.** **The first AI, after some consideration, proposes socialism as a solution. Here, the goverment would set up its own automated manufacture and research facilities, makes goods and services available to everyone for free, and traditional currency is abolished.** **The second AI, which opposes socialism, tries to propose a different system that would also keep everyone happy despite full automation and an absence of jobs.** It suggests that the government instead should create a universal basic income system, where every citizen of the country receives a certain amount of money each month, regardless of whether they have a job or not. This money could be used to purchase goods and services, which would be produced by the automated factories, incentivizing the factories to continue to operate, and giving citizens a steady income. --- **In the future, every job will be automated and no work will be performed by people. To ensure everyone gets products and services despite not being able to work, there are two proposals.** **In the first proposal, the government would set up automated production facilities to manufacture goods that would be distributed to people for free.** **In the second proposal, private companies would keep manufacturing goods, but taxes would be placed on them and used to buy products that would be distributed to the rest of the population.** **Here's an in-depth comparison of both proposals.** The first proposal would be more efficient, as automated production facilities are more efficient than manual labor. It would also be more equitable, as everyone would receive the same products and services regardless of their socio-economic status. However, it would be costly to set up and maintain these automated production facilities. The second proposal would be more cost-effective, as private companies already exist and would just need to be taxed in order to fund the distribution of goods. It would also be less equitable, as wealthier people would be able to afford more expensive, higher-quality goods than those who are less well-off. Ultimately, how to handle the automation of jobs will depend on the resources available in a given economy and the preferences of the people in power. No matter which proposal is chosen, it is important to ensure that everyone is able to access products and services in a fair and equitable way. --- **An AI and a human are comparing two ways to organize society in the future. According to them, the first proposal is more efficient and equitable, but difficult to set up initially, while the second roposal is less efficient and equitable but would be easy to set up with little to no change in policy.** **Upon consideration, they decided that any lawmaker should choose** to implement the first proposal, despite the difficulty of setting it up. They argued that the initial hardship was worth it for the long-term benefits in efficiency and equity, and that the second proposal should only be used as a temporary solution until the first proposal could be implemented.

tl;dr: Intel and AMD are not selling their processors to Russia, and processors from Russian companies cannot be manufactured as Taiwan is banning TSMC from doing so, while Russia can only produce chips up to a 90 nm process.

You’re right, Lemmy does the job :)

The issue with debate is that it’s an inherently hard problem. Every platform tries to solve it in a different way (voting consensus, etc.). I think federation would help prevent platform-introduced biases.

You are absolutely right… I posted a while ago about a solid-state lab project I was working on. I made pretty large steps towards that, but I eventually realized that it would only make a difference if I could leverage the latest technology. So I’ve spent the last months working on a smaller-scale project (a very low-cost ultrasound imaging machine) and finally I’m starting to see some tangible results; I will build and present the final prototype in collaboration with my university, but the important thing here is that I’m getting both experience and reputation, plus I’m convincing a friend (an engineering lab researcher) to join an eventual, larger-scale, solid-state lab project. The idea is not to get “something that works and is open source”, as it was before, but to research cutting-edge technology.

Well, a lot of stuff I’d say. For example:

  • A federated structured debate platform.
  • A (good) biochemical pathway simulator.
  • Open-source ASIC design automation tools.
  • Software to help research on diplomacy/politics via game theory.
  • More cool games why not!

Hi, sorry for not responding earlier. You seem to be very knowledgeable. I was trained in ethics as part of my medical training, so the extent of my knowledge may not be as great as yours. Anyway, these are the specific pieces of knowledge I was invoking:

  • Ethics only applies to entities with free will. I don’t believe countries have free will since they act in a deterministic fashion.
  • Ethics deals with principles that must be upheld. These principles include not causing harm, acting for the benefit of others, etc. I understand that these principles are the main mechanism for making choices.
  • In the paradigm I was trained on, ethics only states what one should do, and doesn’t deal with punishment.
  • A nexus of causality transfers responsibility. I believe there is a nexus of causality when any deterministic process is involved.

So, my point is that this specific situation must not be resolved by you stated means since:

  • Here, punishment is incompatible with seeking the good of others.
  • Since countries are deterministic, ethics doesn’t apply to them.
  • Since countries are deterministic, even if ethics were to apply, responsibility is transferred (e.g., since I know 100% sure how a country will respond to my actions, I am triggering their response as much as them).

Maybe. But my point was that

  1. Countries aren’t subject to any actual laws enforced by an authority beyond themselves or more powerful countries.
  2. The behavior of a country approaches an ideal, homogeneous benefit-seeking entity better than a person.

So the legal dynamics between countries are very different from those between people.

Heck, I’m not strong in English… Okay, what about “a country is not a person”?

Thank you! I eventually found out about the AI-generated pictures. I know it’s weird on my part to listen to libs like that, but they always turn out wrong, so whatever… In this case I was pointing out that, even if what the webpage said was right, they weren’t claiming anything special.

Yeah, we’ve all studied ethics. Ethics (no matter if you believe it’s inherent to reality or a useful construct) acts in two scenarios:

  • If the individual follows it, it makes them act in a way that serves society.
  • It allows to create laws that apply to all individuals for everyone’s good.

Ethics doesn’t state that “you should punish others when they act contrarily to ethics”. That’s law. And the reason it punishes people is because that discourages them from acting in that way again. Free will, if you wish.

Now, at the international scale there are no real laws. Implementation of laws depends on the ability of individual countries to enforce them, for their own interests. If we could create laws that affected every country, then yes, we could simply model these laws after ethics. But we can’t.

So, in the example I gave you, suppose you are a citizen of country #2. I already stated that the best course of action for your country would be to side with country #5. But then, since you believe you should punish that country because it acted unethically, you will push your government to side with #1 instead. You tried to enforce laws that didn’t exist, and now you’ve acted against your best interests.

The mistake here is that ethics doesn’t deal with punishment. Punishment is specified by laws, seeking the best interest of society. But the best course of action here was not to punish, yet your instinct led you the wrong way.

I’ll clarify then. You’re assuming individual ethics apply to large groups of people, which disregards the reason why those ethics exist in the first place. They exist at the individual level as an “acceptable” set of behaviors to discourage behaviors outside it. There are two important differences between individuals and countries:

  • Individuals differ in their willingness to do harm or good, while for very large groups these differences simply disappear in every case. As I mentioned, every country acts for their own good, and if they do good it’s simply because that’s what it’s most useful to them at the moment. I.e. ethics do not offer meaningful judgements at that scale.
  • Individuals are overseen by governments, while countries are not. This means it’s impossible to reward or punish actors from outside the system, and any rules are created and enforced by the actors themselves. I.e. ethics do not offer any utility at that scale.

For these two reasons, ethics do not make sense at an international scale. I’ll illustrate with an example:

There are 5 people. 4 of them make an agreement to beat up the 5th. This person learns of the plot against them and decides to attack each of the others separately, one by one, by just waiting outside their homes.

In this case, the 5th person should have simply called the police. What they did was unacceptable, since they attacked first, thus escalating the conflict.

However, at an international scale, things change dramatically. There is no police, so there’s just country #5, presented with a choice: either do nothing and get beaten up, or attack first. Did they act right or wrong? Well, it doesn’t matter, since there’s no way to change the result. The country will always choose the second option, and, furthermore, the other 4 countries will know damn well what #5 will do. In fact, they will not plot against it unless they think they are going to win in every scenario.

Now, imagine this happens, and country #5 has already attacked country #4. Now, the remaining 3 would be able to beat up #5. But let’s say #2 and #3 decide to side with #5 and beat #1; maybe in that situation they would suffer less losses, get better profits, etc. But in this case it’s in the best interest of #1 to oppose #5, and thus to keep #2 and #3 on its side, so it decides to convince the people on those two countries to hate on #5. Now they can’t side with it, since they would face backlash, so they need to co-operate with #1.

While a purely ethical analysis only concludes that ‘#5 attacked #4’ (which doesn’t provide any useful course of action), the more useful benefit analysis affords that #1 has managed to obtain the highest benefit, by manipulating #2 and #3 and capitalizing on conflict between #4 and #5. The useful course of action would have been for #2 and #3 to side with #5.

This isn’t about ethics. Countries are not people, they only act in their own interest with exactly zero regard for anything else. Russia attacked Ukraine because it was the least bad option for them (Ukraine joining NATO would be very bad for them), and the US imposes sanctions because it is also the best possible move, and now they can do it without facing backlash. And that includes propaganda if necessary, on both sides.

The point I’m trying to defend is that manipulating the public’s opinion is part of the global dynamic, and everyone should be aware of, and oppose it, to get what THEY want, rather than what the large-scale political chaos imposes on them. You seem to agree on that, so that’s great, I don’t see the need for further debate.

But why Russia specifically? You can only demonize yourself or your enemies, and Russia is the enemy here.

In October 2020, the already finished script for the third season […]

On September 10, 2021, Karl Urban confirmed that the season officially wrapped filming.

Here, if you look for the word ‘Russia’ it appears in 5 out of 8 episodes. They literally infiltrate a Russian facility, where the Russians appear as the antagonists, plus Russian characters act in other vile ways in the plot.

I can think of new media that vilifies Russia. For example, The Boys.

Spain has so much socialist potential. Too bad the liberal/incel/racist conglomerate are on the verge of necromancing fascism out of its grave…

How could different production modes respond to the new wave of AI-powered automation?
I want to know your opinion on this. My guess is that capitalism requires an ever-increasing production to remain stable and keep everyone employed. While under socialism labor conditions would improve.

How does the labor market work under socialism?
Every production system has a way to assign jobs to citizens. The basic idea is that the kinds of labor "required" by society for an efficient fulfillment of needs don't necessarily align with those that an unhindered free choice of jobs would afford. The way this is solved under capitalism is letting labor be a commodity, subject to market forces. Workers earn wages that are determined by the demand for their work and the availability of it. The difference in wages across jobs pushes us towards working jobs we otherwise wouldn't. I believe the importance of the job market is underestimated in past Marxist literature. It used to be the case that labor was expendable and interchangeable; the availability of any one kind of labor greatly surpassed demand, making wages just a way to keep the proletariat living and reproducing. However, with an increase in automation, those jobs have long ago disappeared in developed countries, and new ones are taking their place. Notably, these new jobs increasingly require training, which has the effect of making a worker unsuitable for all but their own specialized job. As a result, wages are now established mainly by market forces. If an employer can, by virtue of the rest of the economy, offer worse working conditions than minimally required by the workforce, they will. Conversely, if a particular kind of labor is sold for a higher price, the employer will oblige. As a special case that I'd like to mention, those that are very heavily demanded (e.g. public figures, elite sportsmen...) can get extremely high market prices for their labor. This is a new mechanic that has become more common. I'd like to discuss how a Socialist country would tackle the problem of job distribution, in a way that hopefully offers better guarantees than a free job market.

I get Google recommends for Stranger Things after reading a post on it with Jerboa
How??? I haven't typed a word about it in my keyboard. Haven't watched the series either. How did they associate me with it at all?