AI, the Drone Wars, and UBI.

[Swammerdami]

Sooner or later, we will need to shift from a model of society in which productive work determines individual wealth, to one in which automated work provides wealth for all.

Yes, we have to move to communism.

Dude, that's not communism.

quacks like a duck, walks like a duck.

Shits on definitions like a duck.

No, that's more the geese.

Geese are not to be confused with the gray ducks, and even I can recognize the difference between social interest and well taxed and regulated industry is not communism.

Who determines social interest of the taxed industry? The committee of the golden geese?

Whatever you call it, it sounds more like communism than free market capitalism to me. I agree with Barbos, free market capitalism will not work unless money and private property still has trading value to someone. Full stop.

I came here also to endorse Mr. Barbos' position; then saw RVonse had beat me to it.
I thought sharing (according to needs) the rent on land and capital was almost the definition of communism.

 

[TV and credit cards]

As long as conservatives have power in the U.S. there will be no UBI (for us U.S.ians)

It could come in some indirect manner, as a tax credit paid out monthly or even obscured as unemployment/underemployment compensation. The GOP screaming begins with where the money comes from and we all know where it should come from, the companies making bank replacing humans with machines.

 

[ZiprHead]

Whatever you call it, it sounds more like communism than free market capitalism to me. I agree with Barbos, free market capitalism will not work unless money and private property still has trading value to someone. Full stop.

I don't think either of you know the definition of communism.

Communism is a type of government as well as an economic system (a way of creating and sharing wealth). In a Communist system, individual people do not own land, factories, or machinery. Instead, the government or the whole community owns these things. Everyone is supposed to share the wealth that they create.

The OP is about creating needs and wants at will without the involvement of anyone else. Thus the Star Trek reference. In the Star Trek world money is obsolete and people still have private possessions.

 

[steve_bank]

In the news AI fighter jets are coming. A dystopian scifi reality.

Autonomous humanoid looking soldiers.

There are no laws and processes that oversee the release of new technology. Other than physical environmental regulations and direct safety issues.

It is part of our wide open free market economic paradigm.

 

[bilby]

Sooner or later, we will need to shift from a model of society in which productive work determines individual wealth, to one in which automated work provides wealth for all.

Yes, we have to move to communism.

Dude, that's not communism.

quacks like a duck, walks like a duck.

Shits on definitions like a duck.

No, that's more the geese.

Geese are not to be confused with the gray ducks, and even I can recognize the difference between social interest and well taxed and regulated industry is not communism.

Who determines social interest of the taxed industry? The committee of the golden geese?

Whatever you call it, it sounds more like communism than free market capitalism to me. I agree with Barbos, free market capitalism will not work unless money and private property still has trading value to someone. Full stop.

I came here also to endorse Mr. Barbos' position; then saw RVonse had beat me to it.
I thought sharing (according to needs) the rent on land and capital was almost the definition of communism.

I didn't feel the need to respond to Barbos (he's on my ignore list, so I wasn't aware of his comment until others started discussing it); But I would like to note for the record that I described my position as "Techno-communism" before Barbos even entered the thread.

In a post-scarcity society, communism is the only option - capitalism is a mechanism to ensure the efficient use of scarce resources, so it is completely irrelevant in the absence of scarcity.

Marx recognised that communism required a society that was fully industrialised as a prerequisite for its success; IMO, he didn't go far enough, though given the state of technology in his day, he could hardly have been expected to go any further with that idea than he actually did.

Communism requires that people can be supplied with their needs without being forced into hard labour. A high-technology post-scarcity Star Trek replicator based world, would be a great deal more like communism as it was originally envisaged, than like whatever the fuck Joe Stalin thought he was doing.

 

[bilby]

Whatever you call it, it sounds more like communism than free market capitalism to me. I agree with Barbos, free market capitalism will not work unless money and private property still has trading value to someone. Full stop.

I don't think either of you know the definition of communism.

Communism is a type of government as well as an economic system (a way of creating and sharing wealth). In a Communist system, individual people do not own land, factories, or machinery. Instead, the government or the whole community owns these things. Everyone is supposed to share the wealth that they create.

The OP is about creating needs and wants at will without the involvement of anyone else. Thus the Star Trek reference. In the Star Trek world money is obsolete and people still have private possessions.

There is nothing in your definition about people not owning private posessions.

It seems that it is you who is misunderstanding the definitions of communism.

And communism only became a type of government in 1918, and that type of government not only is not what we are discussing here, but arguably has little relationship to the economic definition of communism.

If you imagine that communist government meant communist economic arrangements, such as the absence of private property, you should consider the consequences for a random Russian citizen who decided to use Stalin's limousine instead of walking home or catching a bus.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sooner or later, we will need to shift from a model of society in which productive work determines individual wealth, to one in which automated work provides wealth for all.

Yes, we have to move to communism.

Dude, that's not communism.

quacks like a duck, walks like a duck.

Shits on definitions like a duck.

No, that's more the geese.

Geese are not to be confused with the gray ducks, and even I can recognize the difference between social interest and well taxed and regulated industry is not communism.

Who determines social interest of the taxed industry? The committee of the golden geese?

Whatever you call it, it sounds more like communism than free market capitalism to me. I agree with Barbos, free market capitalism will not work unless money and private property still has trading value to someone. Full stop.

I came here also to endorse Mr. Barbos' position; then saw RVonse had beat me to it.
I thought sharing (according to needs) the rent on land and capital was almost the definition of communism.

I didn't feel the need to respond to Barbos (he's on my ignore list, so I wasn't aware of his comment until others started discussing it); But I would like to note for the record that I described my position as "Techno-communism" before Barbos even entered the thread.

In a post-scarcity society, communism is the only option - capitalism is a mechanism to ensure the efficient use of scarce resources, so it is completely irrelevant in the absence of scarcity.

Marx recognised that communism required a society that was fully industrialised as a prerequisite for its success; IMO, he didn't go far enough, though given the state of technology in his day, he could hardly have been expected to go any further with that idea than he actually did.

Communism requires that people can be supplied with their needs without being forced into hard labour. A high-technology post-scarcity Star Trek replicator based world, would be a great deal more like communism as it was originally envisaged, than like whatever the fuck Joe Stalin thought he was doing.

Well, I would distinguish socialism from communism insofar as socialism gives society the say, and the resources are not communally owned; there is still a profit margin to the individual, however slim to be determined by taxation, over the average benefit.

 

[bilby]

Sooner or later, we will need to shift from a model of society in which productive work determines individual wealth, to one in which automated work provides wealth for all.

Yes, we have to move to communism.

Dude, that's not communism.

quacks like a duck, walks like a duck.

Shits on definitions like a duck.

No, that's more the geese.

Geese are not to be confused with the gray ducks, and even I can recognize the difference between social interest and well taxed and regulated industry is not communism.

Who determines social interest of the taxed industry? The committee of the golden geese?

Whatever you call it, it sounds more like communism than free market capitalism to me. I agree with Barbos, free market capitalism will not work unless money and private property still has trading value to someone. Full stop.

I came here also to endorse Mr. Barbos' position; then saw RVonse had beat me to it.
I thought sharing (according to needs) the rent on land and capital was almost the definition of communism.

I didn't feel the need to respond to Barbos (he's on my ignore list, so I wasn't aware of his comment until others started discussing it); But I would like to note for the record that I described my position as "Techno-communism" before Barbos even entered the thread.

In a post-scarcity society, communism is the only option - capitalism is a mechanism to ensure the efficient use of scarce resources, so it is completely irrelevant in the absence of scarcity.

Marx recognised that communism required a society that was fully industrialised as a prerequisite for its success; IMO, he didn't go far enough, though given the state of technology in his day, he could hardly have been expected to go any further with that idea than he actually did.

Communism requires that people can be supplied with their needs without being forced into hard labour. A high-technology post-scarcity Star Trek replicator based world, would be a great deal more like communism as it was originally envisaged, than like whatever the fuck Joe Stalin thought he was doing.

Well, I would distinguish socialism from communism insofar as socialism gives society the say, and the resources are not communally owned; there is still a profit margin to the individual, however slim to be determined by taxation, over the average benefit.

Sure; If you ask ten IIDBers to define Communism and Socialism, you will get a hundred definitions. Basically nobody agrees on the exact definitions of these words.

Having said which, there is a much more interesting conversation to be had in this thread than a mere re-hashing of that tired old dispute about definitions. If we want to have it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sooner or later, we will need to shift from a model of society in which productive work determines individual wealth, to one in which automated work provides wealth for all.

Yes, we have to move to communism.

Dude, that's not communism.

quacks like a duck, walks like a duck.

Shits on definitions like a duck.

No, that's more the geese.

Geese are not to be confused with the gray ducks, and even I can recognize the difference between social interest and well taxed and regulated industry is not communism.

Who determines social interest of the taxed industry? The committee of the golden geese?

Whatever you call it, it sounds more like communism than free market capitalism to me. I agree with Barbos, free market capitalism will not work unless money and private property still has trading value to someone. Full stop.

I came here also to endorse Mr. Barbos' position; then saw RVonse had beat me to it.
I thought sharing (according to needs) the rent on land and capital was almost the definition of communism.

I didn't feel the need to respond to Barbos (he's on my ignore list, so I wasn't aware of his comment until others started discussing it); But I would like to note for the record that I described my position as "Techno-communism" before Barbos even entered the thread.

In a post-scarcity society, communism is the only option - capitalism is a mechanism to ensure the efficient use of scarce resources, so it is completely irrelevant in the absence of scarcity.

Marx recognised that communism required a society that was fully industrialised as a prerequisite for its success; IMO, he didn't go far enough, though given the state of technology in his day, he could hardly have been expected to go any further with that idea than he actually did.

Communism requires that people can be supplied with their needs without being forced into hard labour. A high-technology post-scarcity Star Trek replicator based world, would be a great deal more like communism as it was originally envisaged, than like whatever the fuck Joe Stalin thought he was doing.

Well, I would distinguish socialism from communism insofar as socialism gives society the say, and the resources are not communally owned; there is still a profit margin to the individual, however slim to be determined by taxation, over the average benefit.

Sure; If you ask ten IIDBers to define Communism and Socialism, you will get a hundred definitions. Basically nobody agrees on the exact definitions of these words.

Having said which, there is a much more interesting conversation to be had in this thread than a mere re-hashing of that tired old dispute about definitions. If we want to have it.

Well, to me the distinction of allowing individuals to have some measure of meaningful ownership over something is a big distinction.

If there are wars, though, I broadly expect them to be fought between the factions of "natural humans" and "the machines", though it can't be said enough that "the machines" will include a fair number of folks like me.

I will pretty well guarantee though that rogue agents will be a thing in the next year or so, and it's going to be interesting to watch.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see lots of things that people claim are AI. They don't think, though. They're all about regurgitating answers, not creating them.

 

[TV and credit cards]

They don't think, though. They're all about regurgitating answers, not creating them.

Maybe the can.

Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev threatened Russian internet technology and telecommunications company Yandex because its large language model failed to provide responses that cohere with ongoing Russian information operations.

Or they're just not shoveling enough horseshit in to get the desired answers out.
I know someone who might be able to help.

 

[Jarhyn]

I see lots of things that people claim are AI. They don't think, though. They're all about regurgitating answers, not creating them.

Citation needed. Can you defend your definition of the word 'think'?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see lots of things that people claim are AI. They don't think, though. They're all about regurgitating answers, not creating them.

Citation needed. Can you defend your definition of the word 'think'?

To me "think" involves original thought, not merely returning the words of your teachers.

What we have now is systems that are good at comparing items of interest to a large variety of previously-identified samples. The vast power of the computer often proves superior to the human understanding.

But will a self-driving car recognize a piece of paper that says SOTP and is neither red nor an octagon? A native speaker of English would.

"Think" is Koko labeling watermelon as "water fruit".

 

[ZiprHead]

To me "think" involves original thought, not merely returning the words of your teachers.

How is that different from what regular people do?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To me "think" involves original thought, not merely returning the words of your teachers.

How is that different from what regular people do?

People do think. The point is current AIs do not.

 

[barbos]

To me "think" involves original thought, not merely returning the words of your teachers.

How is that different from what regular people do?

You certainly have not demonstrated any original thought.
I agree with LP, AI at present time is a little more than sophisticated and massive search engine.
It's still good at things that humans are not particularly good at and bad at things humans are good.

 

[barbos]

Communism has bad connotation in the west, manly because of single USSR experiment.
I don't think it's well deserved. "Capitalists" have been assholes, particularly at the time just before Russian Revolution.
WW1, colonialism, etc. USSR was not a properly conducted experiment and went off the rail almost immediately because capitalists tried to squash it, USSR rulers were mostly preoccupied with defending during whole duration of the experiment. I still think it would have failed because technology was not there. But who knows. Without constant wars from capitalists, technology progress could have been faster. Yes, I know war could be good for technological progress.

 

[Jarhyn]

To me "think" involves original thought, not merely returning the words of your teachers.

How is that different from what regular people do?

People do think. The point is current AIs do not.

Only by dubious assumption based on a dubious definition of "thinking" which is conveniently made very difficult or even placed out of reach on the basis that it would be nearly impossible to find an insight that the AI has not been exposed to to see if it will emerge.

In the early stages with smaller base models, this emergence of capability or insight or word combination to generate concepts happened on a fairly regular basis.

You are in fact posting a no-true-scotsman for the sake of disregarding the reality that the missing part in modern AI has always been the language model itself.

Given that AI (and LLMs in particular) do discover new and novel chemicals all the time, and many of these are effective to the task asked of them, your statement that they don't rather falls flat.

If we are talking dialectic synthesis here, AI shine like a burning star in that respect.

 

[ZiprHead]

To me "think" involves original thought, not merely returning the words of your teachers.

How is that different from what regular people do?

You certainly have not demonstrated any original thought.
I agree with LP, AI at present time is a little more than sophisticated and massive search engine.
It's still good at things that humans are not particularly good at and bad at things humans are good.

All human thoughts are based on stored memories. All AI thoughts are based on stored memories.

 

[barbos]

To me "think" involves original thought, not merely returning the words of your teachers.

How is that different from what regular people do?

You certainly have not demonstrated any original thought.
I agree with LP, AI at present time is a little more than sophisticated and massive search engine.
It's still good at things that humans are not particularly good at and bad at things humans are good.

All human thoughts are based on stored memories. All AI thoughts are based on stored memories.

But AI at present has no thoughts. It has vast memory, but in terms of thought it is pretty much earth worm.