Can a bot run a company?

[Axulus]

Can a bot run a company? A hot new tech venture that wants to run entirely by code thinks so. It's called "The DAO"—short for Decentralized Autonomous Organization—and it aims to run as a for-profit corporate body that will obviate the need for human beings to make business decisions. That is, provided that the human beings behind The DAO can set it up right.

While this leaderless digital profit-maximization machine may sound more like a clever science fiction plot device than a serious investment vehicle, The DAO has raised over $150 million worth of funding on the Ethereum platform since it first launched a mere month ago. For context, this blew the $116 million record for cryptocurrency-business financing raised by Silicon Valley darling 21 Inc. out of the water. An eyebrow-raising start to be sure, but The DAO faces a long and bumpy road to the world of ubiquitous, autonomous digital organizations that its founders envision.

The DAO presents itself as part venture capital fund, part crowdfunding platform, and part super-cool engine of democratic capitalism for tomorrow. It seeks to raise investment into the platform by selling digital "DAO tokens" in exchange for ether (ETH), the cryptocurrency of the distributed computing platform Ethereum on which The DAO is built. The DAO, which defines itself as "the sum of those holding the DAO's representative tokens," will then invest these funds into promising projects that will hopefully yield big returns for token holders.

Where The DAO differs from traditional venture-capital firms is in its management structure. Like the similar BitShares project that preceded this effort, there are no executives or middle managers to call shots and guide activity. As its website proudly informs: "THE DAO IS CODE." Or maybe code plus consensus, but more on that in a moment. Purchasing a DAO token is a bit like entering into a new kind of business arrangement where you bind yourself to the financial outcomes of a crowd-influenced, pre-programmed directive.

More here: https://reason.com/archives/2016/05/24/can-a-bot-run-a-company

Wasn't it unter that said that capitalists wouldn't want something like this, which is why we see low skill jobs getting automated? Well, looks like that conspiracy is bunk given the amount of money this project has already raised.

 

[Bronzeage]

It sounds like a service company that would depend upon a thriving economy. A financial service company can reduce expenses for production companies, but the production company has to be making money in the first place.

I wonder if such a company could have foreseen that fracking would increase oil production at a time when worldwide demand was flat, thus forcing oil prices down, and leave fracking companies trying to pay off their loans with oil that sells for less than half their break even point.

 

[barbos]

Well, Trump runs his company too.

 

[untermensche]

Wasn't it unter that said that capitalists wouldn't want something like this, which is why we see low skill jobs getting automated? Well, looks like that conspiracy is bunk given the amount of money this project has already raised.

No I said something like this was possible.

And that we wouldn't see top-down organizations trying to develop it.

And we will see how many try to implement it.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course a bot can run a company. Hell, my dogs can run a company. The real question is can a bot or my dogs run a company well.

 

[RVonse]

Sooner or later, just about every job will be replaced by some sort of technology. Its only a matter of time and how fast tech develops.

Some people like Loran think this will take many years but I don't. In any case, lets look at an extreme example where both both robotics and software can produce everything without any human input or labor. Will that still leave capitalism in place? I say yes, because that society will still have to efficiently allocate production for consumers. The only difference (at that point) will be that instead of being limited by labor input and production, consumption will only be limited by what the earth can sustain.

 

[untermensche]

Sooner or later, just about every job will be replaced by some sort of technology. Its only a matter of time and how fast tech develops.

Some people like Loran think this will take many years but I don't. In any case, lets look at an extreme example where both both robotics and software can produce everything without any human input or labor. Will that still leave capitalism in place? I say yes, because that society will still have to efficiently allocate production for consumers. The only difference (at that point) will be that instead of being limited by labor input and production, consumption will only be limited by what the earth can sustain.

What a society needs is to find ways to get wealth into as many hands as possible.

It doesn't need capitalism.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

and today's music company bot has determined that only Justin Bieber and Nickleback covers are the music people like. The bot says that this will be the most profitable after the declining world population due to suicides.

 

[ZiprHead]

Can Watson the supercomputer make music with emotion?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ibm-watson-supercomputer-makes-music-tailored-to-human-emotions/

 

[Harry Bosch]

Sooner or later, just about every job will be replaced by some sort of technology. Its only a matter of time and how fast tech develops.

Some people like Loran think this will take many years but I don't. In any case, lets look at an extreme example where both both robotics and software can produce everything without any human input or labor. Will that still leave capitalism in place? I say yes, because that society will still have to efficiently allocate production for consumers. The only difference (at that point) will be that instead of being limited by labor input and production, consumption will only be limited by what the earth can sustain.

What a society needs is to find ways to get wealth into as many hands as possible.

It doesn't need capitalism.

The problem is that wealth isn't fixed. If it isn't managed correctly, it rapidly evaporates. And there isn't enough for everyone to live the life that they think they deserve.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Run a company? In what way? Does a CEO run a company? We always here about their value until there is a scandal, and then the story changes and the CEO isn't all that important.

 

[RVonse]

Sooner or later, just about every job will be replaced by some sort of technology. Its only a matter of time and how fast tech develops.

Some people like Loran think this will take many years but I don't. In any case, lets look at an extreme example where both both robotics and software can produce everything without any human input or labor. Will that still leave capitalism in place? I say yes, because that society will still have to efficiently allocate production for consumers. The only difference (at that point) will be that instead of being limited by labor input and production, consumption will only be limited by what the earth can sustain.

What a society needs is to find ways to get wealth into as many hands as possible.

It doesn't need capitalism.

I think it needs both and that the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

Everyone needs to be given an equal share of what the world can provide.....

But after that amount of socialism, capitalism will still be needed in order to decide which products the robots will make and for whom.

 

[whichphilosophy]

We've had Bots operating Human Resources departments for years and can do the following more efficiently than humans:
Lose CVs
Mis categorise potential employees
Write Adverts that do not quite match what the job easily requires
Unable to locate suitable candidates in a hurry for a critical project.
Send themselves on courses but don't like to learn about employment law
Feel they know more about a job than a person who has successfully done it for some time
Believe that cheaper is better.

There is a saying, "If you want to lose a CV send it to HR"

 

[SimpleDon]

Can a bot run a company? A hot new tech venture that wants to run entirely by code thinks so. It's called "The DAO"—short for Decentralized Autonomous Organization—and it aims to run as a for-profit corporate body that will obviate the need for human beings to make business decisions. That is, provided that the human beings behind The DAO can set it up right.

While this leaderless digital profit-maximization machine may sound more like a clever science fiction plot device than a serious investment vehicle, The DAO has raised over $150 million worth of funding on the Ethereum platform since it first launched a mere month ago. For context, this blew the $116 million record for cryptocurrency-business financing raised by Silicon Valley darling 21 Inc. out of the water. An eyebrow-raising start to be sure, but The DAO faces a long and bumpy road to the world of ubiquitous, autonomous digital organizations that its founders envision.

The DAO presents itself as part venture capital fund, part crowdfunding platform, and part super-cool engine of democratic capitalism for tomorrow. It seeks to raise investment into the platform by selling digital "DAO tokens" in exchange for ether (ETH), the cryptocurrency of the distributed computing platform Ethereum on which The DAO is built. The DAO, which defines itself as "the sum of those holding the DAO's representative tokens," will then invest these funds into promising projects that will hopefully yield big returns for token holders.

Where The DAO differs from traditional venture-capital firms is in its management structure. Like the similar BitShares project that preceded this effort, there are no executives or middle managers to call shots and guide activity. As its website proudly informs: "THE DAO IS CODE." Or maybe code plus consensus, but more on that in a moment. Purchasing a DAO token is a bit like entering into a new kind of business arrangement where you bind yourself to the financial outcomes of a crowd-influenced, pre-programmed directive.

More here: https://reason.com/archives/2016/05/24/can-a-bot-run-a-company

Wasn't it unter that said that capitalists wouldn't want something like this, which is why we see low skill jobs getting automated? Well, looks like that conspiracy is bunk given the amount of money this project has already raised.

It is a very weak argument to say that something is valid because a lot of money has been raised to support it. We have spent thirty five years boosting financial capital and the wealth of the wealthy that almost any idea that sounds even remotely plausible can attract investment funding.

The theory of decentralized management is not to eliminate top level executive jobs, it is that the best ideas come from the lowest levels of the company, the people who deal with the customers and the problems on a daily basis. That the executives in the central office are needed to validate the collective decisions of the lowest levels and that to do this the executives need the shortest path between themselves and that lowest level. In other words to eliminate as much of the middle management as possible.

This theory has some flaws, for example, that middle management is the training ground for upper management and most importantly, what is known as the  Peter Principle, that executives are promoted until they reach the first job that they are too incompetent to do, meaning that the higher that you go in a company the more people are incompetent at their jobs and that most of your upper level executives are incompetent.

All of this would speak in favor of an approach like the DAO one. I have another.

I have always maintained that the most expensive things that any company faces are the costs of education, because most of the management of a company learns by making mistakes. That very often these mistakes have been made before and will be made again in the future. That huge gains can be made in a company by making sure that the lessons from a mistake aren't forgotten, that the company has a memory too, separate from the collective memories of the employees. This computer program could and would have to provide this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wasn't it unter that said that capitalists wouldn't want something like this, which is why we see low skill jobs getting automated? Well, looks like that conspiracy is bunk given the amount of money this project has already raised.

No I said something like this was possible.

And that we wouldn't see top-down organizations trying to develop it.

And we will see how many try to implement it.

Continuing to have faith that there is such an answer doesn't mean there is one. Your reaction to people pointing out problems is to say that we are stuck in old thinking--but you never show how new thinking would actually work. Your position looks an awful lot like a religion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sooner or later, just about every job will be replaced by some sort of technology. Its only a matter of time and how fast tech develops.

Some people like Loran think this will take many years but I don't. In any case, lets look at an extreme example where both both robotics and software can produce everything without any human input or labor. Will that still leave capitalism in place? I say yes, because that society will still have to efficiently allocate production for consumers. The only difference (at that point) will be that instead of being limited by labor input and production, consumption will only be limited by what the earth can sustain.

Computers are making great inroads on an awful lot of non-creative tasks. While they provide assistance for those of us that do creative tasks it's only assistance, it doesn't do anything to the creative part of the job. I spent a lot less time on the nuts and bolts of the job but as much time as ever on the creative part of it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sooner or later, just about every job will be replaced by some sort of technology. Its only a matter of time and how fast tech develops.

Some people like Loran think this will take many years but I don't. In any case, lets look at an extreme example where both both robotics and software can produce everything without any human input or labor. Will that still leave capitalism in place? I say yes, because that society will still have to efficiently allocate production for consumers. The only difference (at that point) will be that instead of being limited by labor input and production, consumption will only be limited by what the earth can sustain.

What a society needs is to find ways to get wealth into as many hands as possible.

It doesn't need capitalism.

A society where wealth is as widespread as possible is a society with a high standard of living but little investment in the future. In time it will crash badly because there isn't the capital floating around funding new enterprises.

The left believes that businesses just appear. While that's reasonable for small-scale things that's not enough for things that must start large.

- - - Updated - - -

We've had Bots operating Human Resources departments for years and can do the following more efficiently than humans:
Lose CVs
Mis categorise potential employees
Write Adverts that do not quite match what the job easily requires
Unable to locate suitable candidates in a hurry for a critical project.
Send themselves on courses but don't like to learn about employment law
Feel they know more about a job than a person who has successfully done it for some time
Believe that cheaper is better.

There is a saying, "If you want to lose a CV send it to HR"

Yeah, CV-scanning bots are far worse than humans. They're good enough to send some decent ones through but they reject an awful lot of good ones.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Aren't bots already running companies?

 

[laughing dog]

A society where wealth is as widespread as possible is a society with a high standard of living but little investment in the future. In time it will crash badly because there isn't the capital floating around funding new enterprises.

Where do you find such economic ignorance?

 

[Bronzeage]

A society where wealth is as widespread as possible is a society with a high standard of living but little investment in the future. In time it will crash badly because there isn't the capital floating around funding new enterprises.

The left believes that businesses just appear. While that's reasonable for small-scale things that's not enough for things that must start large.

....

This would apply only if everyone in the society were Libertarians.

In a society with an equitable distribution of wealth and property, people would form cooperative groups and pool capital. Of course there would have to be laws enacted to protect people from the unscrupulous. We would call this corporate law.

The idea that an inequitable distribution of wealth is necessary for investment in large scale infrastructure and industry is ridiculous.