|
iFederico posted:Listen, putting things together is something that engineers have to do. I am more of a 'big picture' kind of guy - you know, drawing esoteric connections between different fields that most technical thinkers lack the holistic vision to do. While traditional scholars might spend years polishing a single obscure proof, or digging up archives in search of a particular concept has changed throughout time, I prefer to make my work available to masses leveraging web 2.0 technology... I'm a new kind of academic, really. Seriously, why am I being held to academic standards in a debate thread on Something Awful?
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Seriously, why am I being held to academic standards in a debate thread on Something Awful? Because if you're going to write enough words to make a professor's eyes glaze over, you should at least make them substantial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Seriously, why am I being held to academic standards in a debate thread on Something Awful? Because you've already tried the alternatives and they were poo poo. RealityApologist posted:I think the point gets across even if I'm doing a poor job of it personally. I came up with the marble idea specifically to make the view crazy enough to stand out, and it seems to have successfully taken hold in the collective memory here. I'm pretty happy with the way things are going in this thread, to be perfectly honest. Hey everyone dance for the puppetmaster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Seriously, why am I being held to academic standards in a debate thread on Something Awful? Because you repeatedly invoked those standards in an attempt to get people to stop mocking you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Because you repeatedly invoked those standards in an attempt to get people to stop mocking you. I'm not invoking the standards of academic work, I'm referencing that work to demonstrate the basis for the terms and ideas that I'm appealing to, to show that I'm not making this poo poo up out of whole cloth but it is actually where the research and science is. It is support for my claims, not examples of what I think I'm doing. Jesus, it's like you all have never had a civil discussion before in your lives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Seriously, why am I being held to academic standards in a debate thread on Something Awful? Didn't you just link to a (nominally) academic paper you wrote? If somebody came in here and posted a "paper" about homeopathy being totally interesting, do you think that would get a pass?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Seriously, why am I being held to academic standards in a debate thread on Something Awful? Would you prefer to be held to the level of the standard singularity spouter instead?-- I can tell you to go back editing the Pokemon wiki if that would really make you feel better. Your ideas are pretty lovely for the currently minority or underprivileged even on a cursory view, and you aren't even doing the actual work of engineering a solution, but instead are building the sandcastles in the sky for what to do afterwards. All of this techno-fetishism is an attempt to paper over the horrible results your plan would have for the average person, much less a minority. Just own it and accept it when decent people tell you to get hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
What's also funny is that the 'fathers' of cognitive science in the 60s and 70s were people like Minsky, Papart, etc, who maybe, knew a small thing or two about computing and math?? Maybe tho, not sure.RealityApologist posted:Seriously, why am I being held to academic standards in a debate thread on Something Awful? If you want to own up to being a poo poo poster, that's totally fine by me. Somehow, I got the ridiculous impression that you actually wanted your idea to be taken seriously - but that was obviously stupid on my part, I mean, nobody could post that drivel seriously think that people would critically evaluate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
I've known several philosophy majors who also made excellent scientists when they changed fields for grad school. It's sad to see that the opposite may not be true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not invoking the standards of academic work, I'm referencing that work to demonstrate the basis for the terms and ideas that I'm appealing to, to show that I'm not making this poo poo up out of whole cloth but it is actually where the research and science is. It is support for my claims, not examples of what I think I'm doing. "Hey guys, I study this academically so you have to take me seriously! C'mon, you're being unduly mean by dismissing my arguments. I'm like, published in journals and stuff!" ... "I don't get it, why are you all holding me to an academic standard here? I thought this was casual internet discussion forum, not the submission panel of the open source journals I totally namedropped earlier!" RealityApologist posted:Jesus, it's like you all have never had a civil discussion before in your lives. You're allegedly a smart guy. What's the common denominator in all of your unpopular threads?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I've known several philosophy majors who also made excellent scientists when they changed fields for grad school. It's sad to see that the opposite may not be true. Quine was a mathematician before becoming a philosopher. Kuhn (as much as I dislike him, he is very influential) was a physicist before hand, and so was Popper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I honestly think that in a world run by software, all the NSA cameras and tracking systems are operated on a publicly accessible, open and transparent website, something like Wikipedia, except for security. There have already been a few SF novels based on this sort of premise, one is The Light of Other Days Brin has written some SF novels, but this one is non-fiction: The Transparent Society And this is what ubiquitous surveillance will bring: Three Felonies A Day Many crimes are so fuzzily defined that you commit major felonies every day. And for the majority of the public, it isn't worth the trouble to bring you to trial. With surveillance of everyone all the time, it no longer becomes a bother. If you think otherwise, I would refer you to the Massachusetts crime lab where one forensic analyst plead guilty to falsifying 40,000 positive drug/dna results. Who is to say that the "open and transparent" surveillance won't be falsified by by the next Dookhan? Audre Lorde posted:For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. RealityApologist posted:The world is not run by software, it is run by legal arcana which has regulatory control over the software that runs it. And a cabal of human beings sit behind that legal arcana, protecting it from being too dramatically changed by the times. Cream_Filling posted:Replace all governments with robots? Maybe I should refer you to the works of Kirk et. al (1967) regarding the weaknesses of such a system. Namely the inability of such systems to deal with love. What? Why not include the first season? Or the Terminator series? Are you hiding Sarah Conner?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Didn't you just link to a (nominally) academic paper you wrote? If somebody came in here and posted a "paper" about homeopathy being totally interesting, do you think that would get a pass? But I'm not arguing for homeopathy. Apparently the mere fact that I'm speaking about a subject on which I'm a nonexpert is grounds to totally dismiss anything I have to say without regard for what I'm actually saying. Making comments on a field as a nonexpert doesn't immediately make my claims pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience is appeal to theories and evidence that is inconsistent with and unrecognized by the scientific consensus. I've been repeatedly deferring to scientific papers and theories in the course of this thread, and I've been at pains to show how my ideas here are consistent with and follow directly from the scientific practice as it currently exists. But none of this earns me any credit or conversational charity with the goons, I'm just immediately drowned out in a chorus of contempt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Anyway, constructive advice for a change. If you want meaningful discussion, take a small ideal, work out its implication in detail, discuss possible problematic interpretations with your work, and ask people to chime in. For best results: - Keep the idea small and clear - Don't overhype what you are selling - Make sure you know the topic very well - for example if you are going to discuss optimization, make sure you know the difference between linear/non-linear and convex/non convex(more than the wikipedia article). Big, controversial 'world changing' ideas are stupid 99.99% of the time, and more often than not are just a sign of lack of intellectual modesty. If you have a 'world changing idea' build an incredibly small scale model and work it out meticulously there, making sure you've carried out every step rigorously. quote:Apparently the mere fact that I'm speaking about a subject on which I'm a nonexpert is grounds to totally dismiss anything I have to say without regard for what I'm actually saying. If you ask humble, well posed questions about a field you don't understand, people will usually be happy enough to explain things to you, especially if your interest is genuine. If you burst into a field which you don't understand and start talking about world-scale problems without any respect for the basic ground work, people will just flat out dismiss everything you've said. There's a wonderful essay by Shalizi about how his own field of complexity studies is incredibly polluted by junk because it's become so fashionable that everyone wants to talk about it, without understanding absolutely any of the math behind it. iFederico fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Dec 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Huttan posted:There have already been a few SF novels based on this sort of premise And this great onion article. quote:Many crimes are so fuzzily defined that you commit major felonies every day. And for the majority of the public, it isn't worth the trouble to bring you to trial. With surveillance of everyone all the time, it no longer becomes a bother. This is precisely why I want to distinguish between laws and code. Laws are fuzzy-bordered, and deciding the border cases takes a huge bureaucratic cost. Code, on the other hand, is designed to be formally precise methods of enacting an effective decision procedure. In a world of code there are no fuzzy borders, and that means its clear exactly what and what isn't tolerated, and it is defined by a protocol. But "toleration" needn't take the form of state coercive control. It can just as easily take the form of self-organized social pressure. Imagine, seriously, if reddit had control over the surveillance apparatus of the NSA. I have far more trust in /r/crimelab overseeing the operation of the forensic analysts and calling shenanigans when someone fucks up, than the oversight of professional bureaucrats looking for a comfy job and a pension. I'm not saying /r/nsa would be perfect and would have no faults. I'm only saying it would be different, and as our techniques in hcomp improve the benefits will eventually outweigh the drawbacks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:But I'm not arguing for homeopathy. Apparently the mere fact that I'm speaking about a subject on which I'm a nonexpert is grounds to totally dismiss anything I have to say without regard for what I'm actually saying. No that's not why, it's because what you are saying is nonsense. quote:Making comments on a field as a nonexpert doesn't immediately make my claims pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience is appeal to theories and evidence that is inconsistent with and unrecognized by the scientific consensus. Aaaa-men brother, you took the words right out of my mouth quote:I've been repeatedly deferring to scientific papers and theories in the course of this thread, and I've been at pains to show how my ideas here are consistent with and follow directly from the scientific practice as it currently exists. You are doing pseudoscience with those materials and techniques. I can make a stained glass window out of bottles, that doesn't make me a brewer of beer. quote:But none of this earns me any credit or conversational charity with the goons, I'm just immediately drowned out in a chorus of contempt. Hey, enjoy your time in the wilderness. When DARPA implements your grand ideas through your backchannel contacts there, won't their be egg on our faces!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:But I'm not arguing for homeopathy. Apparently the mere fact that I'm speaking about a subject on which I'm a nonexpert is grounds to totally dismiss anything I have to say without regard for what I'm actually saying. No, your talking vague, buzzword-heavy, technofetishistic gibberish only one or two degrees removed from your equally ridiculous marble economy shitpile is grounds to totally dismiss anything you have to say. Also, as others have pointed out, you've invoked the mortarboard repeatedly, so stop crying about us expecting a wee bit higher level of discourse than what's dribbled forth from you so far. quote:But none of this earns me any credit or conversational charity with the goons, I'm just immediately drowned out in a chorus of contempt.  You know what this really remind me of? Back when infamous sperglord BernieLomax would post about free energy devices and then start whining that the rest of us weren't giving his ideas due consideration or trying to see what was right in what he was saying. You might reflect on that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I honestly think that in a world run by software, all the NSA cameras and tracking systems are operated on a publicly accessible, open and transparent website, something like Wikipedia, except for security. I love your think that this isn't (with the addition of your "attention economy" garbage) just a stealth way to gently caress minorities and remove basic human privacy. It's also seems to neglect the realities of stalking and partner abuse-- I sure as hell would want to be able to keep hidden from someone who wants to be a part of my life without my consent, and is willing to commit violence on me to do so. Like everything else you've done here, this idea fails (I assume purposefully so) to account for the realities of the world your system is entering. Open source security is great until a minority is deigned "dangerous" or "sinful" and thus put under the looking glass for illegal activity. At least with a unified apparatus, we have a chance to have oversight and destroy its ability to oppress through civil rights. Your distributed model is a mess in that there's no control over your neighbors or just interested strangers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Is this an appeal to your own authority? Well, he did take a graduate school math class! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
iFederico posted:If you ask humble, well posed questions about a field you don't understand, people will usually be happy enough to explain things to you, especially if your interest is genuine. If you burst into a field which you don't understand and start talking about world-scale problems without any respect for the basic ground work, people will just flat out dismiss everything you've said. I've been studying the mathematics of complexity theory for about 4 years now. I'm not an expert, but I've been putting the research in, and I'm not making claims that I don't understand. I understand this stuff much better than when I started talking about it during the Occupy threads two years ago, and I've been willing to defend the things I've said. Working on something like this for as long as I have means that I've started to accumulate some theoretical baggage: that architectonic I mentioned, what I call Digital Theory. I've used the theory for such a long time that a lot of my discussion is framed in terms of it, and that means it will seem sprawling and overwhelming to people just being introduced to it, just as with any other architectonic project. I think a lot of the claims I'm making in the framework really don't overreach too much, and are a reflection of a much more sensible way of looking at the phenomenon. But because it has all this theoretical overhead (or rather, it changes the theoretical baggage of existing theories, like individualism and rational decision theory) it looks more bold than it actually is. I've often thought about this in terms of epicycles in the Ptolemaic system, which are these anomalies that made the old models of the universe complicated and difficult to work with, but accorded with more basic ideological convictions about the place of the earth in the heavens. This gets replaces (and dramatically simplified) by Copernicus simply by changing the orbits to ellipses, but the idea is such an affront to the conventions of the time that it is rejected out of hand as impossible. I think the existing structure, of money and state government, is an overly complicated epicycle that is obscuring and distorting more fundamental community dynamics that actually shape the social and political landscape. As these dynamics become more clear and easy to represent in high resolution, it will make the obvious redundancies and inefficiencies in the former system clear, and will give way to procedures for managing and directing the communities directly. This is, in some ways, a very minor claim, but it has very far reaching implications. And I've thought about this enough to talk about those implications at many different levels and scales. I'm not preaching a new kind of science; I'm drawing out the implications form the science as it stands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:This is precisely why I want to distinguish between laws and code. Laws are fuzzy-bordered, and deciding the border cases takes a huge bureaucratic cost. Code, on the other hand, is designed to be formally precise methods of enacting an effective decision procedure. In a world of code there are no fuzzy borders, and that means its clear exactly what and what isn't tolerated, and it is defined by a protocol. Spoken like a true person of privilege. The reason we have fuzzy borders on laws is because the world isn't a computer program. Your plan would invariably screw over the currently underprivileged, because who creates the "objective" standards? The same machine that screwing them currently, and now has a layer of faux-science to cover it up. quote:But "toleration" needn't take the form of state coercive control. It can just as easily take the form of self-organized social pressure. Imagine, seriously, if reddit had control over the surveillance apparatus of the NSA. I have far more trust in /r/crimelab overseeing the operation of the forensic analysts and calling shenanigans when someone fucks up, than the oversight of professional bureaucrats looking for a comfy job and a pension. I'm not saying /r/nsa would be perfect and would have no faults. I'm only saying it would be different, and as our techniques in hcomp improve the benefits will eventually outweigh the drawbacks. We're starting to get through the surface here to get at the idiot libertarian core. Trusting some spergs over on reddit instead of the government? That's pretty rich considering the disgusting core of the site that SRS shows to the public on a regular basis. I truly trust the MRA human debris there to come up with a decent answer from a legal standpoint  Also, you talk a big game, but how are you going to assure the basic civil right protections are going to be upheld at every step along the way? By "different", I assume you're actually saying "Will screw over the currently weak" at least in the short term until whatever hcomp improvements you're talking about get completed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Spoken like a true person of privilege. The reason we have fuzzy borders on laws is because the world isn't a computer program. Your plan would invariably screw over the currently underprivileged, because who creates the "objective" standards? The same machine that screwing them currently, and now has a layer of faux-science to cover it up. I've explicitly given examples (see the heroin case) of how potentially underprivileged persons are treated, and you'll see that I'm explicitly discussing a system where there are no objective standards but merely open standards for conflict resolution between interested communities. The whole point is to give the individuals who aren't privileged some voice and interfaces for dealing with the wider communities of which they are a part. The way my system protects people's rights is by protecting the procedures with which they can defend those rights in the public. I'll note here that the procedures we have in place don't protect people's rights all that well as it is; I'm defending my alternative not because I think it solves ever problem right in every case, but just because it will do a better job than the systems we currently have in place. I absolutely agree with you that reddit has aspects that are a disgusting wreck of human filth and depravity. I still think it would do a better job than the NSA, where that depravity has been institutionalized into an entire economic class. At least the kids of reddit aren't paid professional salaries to do their poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
For god's sake read Politics of the English Language or something and stop gobbing up uselessly complex terms like architectonic to describe your completely ad-hoc cobbled together 'philosophy'. Edit: In the heroin example, you magic-hand-waved exterior entities stepping in without at all describing how that would work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Hi guys I'm back from work! Now streaming my life as I help crowdsource traffic for the next eight hours. If you like my channel, please add it to your favorite Google Glass livestreams, let it record and set your AHK script on to rate it a 5 every ten minutes for a chance to win :1000bux:! *clicks Yes to make sure the crowdsourced sheriff stops every car with a hot girl in it while getting drunk and discussing the merits of her rear taillights on webcam*
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I absolutely agree with you that reddit has aspects that are a disgusting wreck of human filth and depravity. I still think it would do a better job than the NSA, where that depravity has been institutionalized into an entire economic class. At least the kids of reddit aren't paid professional salaries to do their poo poo. hey reddit, if you could eliminate anything, what would it be? "Racism. No, I changed my mind... Mexicans." [+757] (reddit.com) "He picked the cotton himself." [+1962|-634] (reddit.com) "friend of the family beans" [+370] (reddit.com) On the subject of people's pornography preferences: "It's all well and good until someone defends beastiality or pedophilia. Then the torches come out." [+449] (reddit.com) "My girlfriend is a porn star and boy is she going to be pissed off when she finds out."[+2478] "Same for my daughter."[+1131] (reddit.com)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You can't just overturn the social zeitgeist in one fell swoop. The fact is that most of our biases now are reactions to the heavy propaganda and conditioning that is imposed by the socially powerful. But with participatory digital technologies, individuals have been given a voice that partly counterbalances those ideologies, and more importantly encourages others to seek out alternatives. And through this process we've been slowly chipping away at the 20th century values bit by bit. We're living in a world where most media is consumed through sources that probably didn't exist even 10 years ago, that can be actively engaged through computers we are holding in our hands, that are cheap enough to give to basically everyone in the world, and that are being used to form actively engaged communities that are organizing across all sorts of political and social boundaries. Great, except for one tiny problem: basically none of this is true. The media is new, but the views and the biases are pretty much the same as always. Tons of internet poo poo reinforces existing biases and traditions, and even the stuff that goes against them is just the same old counterculture poo poo that's been around for a hundred years. New medium, same old ideas, only even less effective and impactful than they ever were before. Likewise, the attention economy would seem to worsen existing social problems, not make them better. What gets more attention this month - the Salvation Army people trying vainly to attract attention with bells, or the endless flood of Christmas movies? So an attention economy would tend to regard charity and helping the poor as unimportant compared to churning out more Christmas media and holding more holiday sales, wouldn't it? And the rest of the year is even worse; before you know it, we'll have an economy based entirely on 9/11 tributes and furry porn. RealityApologist posted:Imagine, seriously, if reddit had control over the surveillance apparatus of the NSA. I have far more trust in /r/crimelab overseeing the operation of the forensic analysts and calling shenanigans when someone fucks up, than the oversight of professional bureaucrats looking for a comfy job and a pension. I'm not saying /r/nsa would be perfect and would have no faults. I'm only saying it would be different, and as our techniques in hcomp improve the benefits will eventually outweigh the drawbacks. Like so many other things you've said, this contradicts known reality. Reddit played detective during the Boston Marathon bombing, and not only did distributed crime-solving fail to find the culprits, but it accused several innocent people and victims, and then posted their personal information on the internet in case anyone wanted to go crowdsource some distributed justice (i.e., lynching). I recall the whole thing being a huge failure, since not only did they not catch the actual bombers, but they wasted law-enforcement time and resources by falsely calling attention to irrelevant people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
If a crowd collectively decides to crucify Eripsa, what level of irony is everyone involved operating on? What if a crowd just sort of doesn't like him but also doesn't want to get off the couch so nothing happens?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Adar posted:If a crowd collectively decides to crucify Eripsa, what level of irony is everyone involved operating on? It means all you need is a charismatic leader and a handful of brownshirts to do whatever you want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:This is precisely why I want to distinguish between laws and code. Laws are fuzzy-bordered, and deciding the border cases takes a huge bureaucratic cost. Code, on the other hand, is designed to be formally precise methods of enacting an effective decision procedure. In a world of code there are no fuzzy borders, and that means its clear exactly what and what isn't tolerated, and it is defined by a protocol. The specifications that I encounter as a software developer are far less well-defined than even the worst legislation passed. Bruce Webster posted:
RealityApologist posted:But "toleration" needn't take the form of state coercive control. It can just as easily take the form of self-organized social pressure. Imagine, seriously, if reddit had control over the surveillance apparatus of the NSA. I have far more trust in /r/crimelab overseeing the operation of the forensic analysts and calling shenanigans when someone fucks up, than the oversight of professional bureaucrats looking for a comfy job and a pension. I'm not saying /r/nsa would be perfect and would have no faults. I'm only saying it would be different, and as our techniques in hcomp improve the benefits will eventually outweigh the drawbacks. quote:Perhaps Auernheimer has more empathy for Sierra now, considering he knows a little more about what he put her through. Remember, Auernheimer said he published her social security number and lied about her being a prostitute because he wanted to punish her for speaking out, for seeking assistance. One of the ironies about this is that since his arrest, Auernheimer has repeatedly asked for help. He also complained that the government robbed him of his right to free speech, though by making Sierra a target for identity theft and physical attacks, he intimidated her into silence. Auernheimer complains that the government wrongly used its considerable resources and power against him. That has to be the biggest irony of all. I don't see any benefits, only harm. Notes: * - I'm using the traditional definition of creepy where one applies the term to stalkers and predators, not the new definition meaning "unattractive male".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:We'd ultimately like a master equation to describe the collective activity of agents. This sounds an awful lot like saying "We'd ultimately like a "Science of human action"". An empirical theory of human activity isn't particularly more appealing (personally it's less) than a deductive one. It's like having to choose between getting hosed by Austrian Economics or Neo-Talyorism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Adar posted:If a crowd collectively decides to crucify Eripsa, what level of irony is everyone involved operating on? What does it mean for the eripsa brand/philosophy that he had to change names to avoid criticism. Does that exemplify radical openness?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've explicitly given examples (see the heroin case) of how potentially underprivileged persons are treated, and you'll see that I'm explicitly discussing a system where there are no objective standards but merely open standards for conflict resolution between interested communities. The whole point is to give the individuals who aren't privileged some voice and interfaces for dealing with the wider communities of which they are a part. The way my system protects people's rights is by protecting the procedures with which they can defend those rights in the public. I'll note here that the procedures we have in place don't protect people's rights all that well as it is; I'm defending my alternative not because I think it solves ever problem right in every case, but just because it will do a better job than the systems we currently have in place. If there are no objective standards, you can't quite say your system is actually better then, can you? Because saying something "will do a better job" sort of implies some level of at least faux-objectivity. Show me your metric and your analysis showing your method to be better. quote:I absolutely agree with you that reddit has aspects that are a disgusting wreck of human filth and depravity. I still think it would do a better job than the NSA, where that depravity has been institutionalized into an entire economic class. At least the kids of reddit aren't paid professional salaries to do their poo poo. It's hilarious to see all the NSA hate now that they're the apparatus is being turned on straight white people. Hint, it was already up in everyone's poo poo long ago. Besides, you're missing the main issue. I can get some people together into a constituency and start to work on the NSA, since it's a public entity controlled (at least indirectly) by elected officials. Nobody controls the mass of humanity that's reddit or whatever replacement it would have. If they're a mass of racists, misogynistic, homophobic slime, well I guess that means black/gay/female people just don't get the same level of service out of that community. And I don't even have a formal method of correcting the issue, since the only way to change things then is to change society, versus use a governmental institution to force equality from the top down on people. Also, expecting professional quality work out of unpaid amateurs is nuts. Even open source has piles of paid companies doing contribution. The real world isn't Galt's Gulch where people do stuff because they find it enjoyable-- real people need real paychecks to buy real things. In short, your Libertarian roots are showing again. Own up to it and discuss the actual issue or expect continued criticism from everyone but dudes jerking off to an Ayn Rand fanfic. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Dec 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:This sounds an awful lot like saying "We'd ultimately like a "Science of human action"". But there's at least a possibility (a rather large one given that we live in a deterministic world) that we don't have free will. If that's true, coming up with a set of equations for it and doing things that way would be correct. That being said, nothing this guy is saying is moving towards that-- hell, we have a million other things to solve first before that's even on the horizon as a solvable issue. All he's doing is putting a layer of techno-fetishism over top of bog standard Objectivist ranting, and then trying to hand-wave it past people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
So it is just the jrodefeld conversation just with a technological language/systematization.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:So it is just the jrodefeld conversation just with a technological language/systematization. That is the best comparison I could imagine. At least it's better than unironic Nazi trolling or the spate of nutty religious trolls (Kyrie, Victor) we've had in the last year or so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:And this great onion article. So does The Code also eliminate scenarios like stealing to feed your family? Seems like a classic and persistent "fuzzy border" to me. EDIT: Seriously this sounds amazingly dystopian, like what someone would write if they wanted you to think "my god that sounds horrible" Badger of Basra fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Dec 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
In a world of RAHOWA there are no fuzzy borders, and that means it's clear exactly what and what isn't tolerated, and it is defined by a protocol In the world of anarcho-capitalism there are no fuzzy borders, and that means it's clear exactly what and what isn't tolerated, and it is defined by a protocol In the Matrix there are no fuzzy borders, and that means it's clear exactly what and what isn't tolerated, and it is defined by a protocol I can keep going all day and definitely will because this is a self-reinforcing cycle and every ten likes of my posts gets me four minutes of making the muppets next door dance for their toothpaste ration
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:iFederico, I know very well what a master equation is, and I've taken graduate level math classes on the subject. A master equation describes a system through a complete description of the relations between all the parts (its state), and the changes its state undergoes over time. This is what we'd like to see for human populations: a description of the relations between all the people and their relevant objects, and the changes in those relations over time. Such a master equation would constitute a model for the attention economy. I don't think I'm making mistake when describing this as the goal, or at least I'm not sure what mistake you think I'm making. That's not even remotely close to possible with what we understand of the THEORY of computer science. Look at this discussion of a similar thing from a discussion of centralized planning (a far, far, far less complex equation system than what you're proposing): quote:A good modern commercial linear programming package can handle a problem with 12 or 13 million variables in a few minutes on a desktop machine. Let’s be generous and push this down to 1 second. (Or let’s hope that Moore’s Law rule-of-thumb has six or eight iterations left,and wait a decade.) To handle a problem with 12 or 13 billion variables then would take about 30 billion seconds, or roughly a thousand years. quote:In any case, when I said these ideas are 10 years ahead of the science, I mean specifically that scientists aren't ready yet to start giving such a state description of things as complex as the full set of human social relations. I posted articles from the HCOMP conference last month which represents the state of the art on the subject, and people are still dealing with very simple incentive models in high constrained environments where the possible relations are represented in very simple toy models. Extending these models to actually cover the range of cases I'm considering in this thread will take some time. I'm not at all saying that I'm outthinking the scientists; instead, I'm only assuming that these models will extend out in the ways I've described, and I'm trying to talk about the larger social and political ramifications of those changes once they occur. This isn't "10 years ahead," it's "unforseeably ahead and quite possibly impossible."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I did not suggest the NSA will crowdsource surveillance. I suggested that crowdsourced surveillance would do a better job of security that the NSA. These are not the same things, and you are mocking a view I don't have. Yeah reddit did a bang-up job of that. I mean, if you're looking to make an even more racist and inaccurate system than the FBI, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Lyesh posted:Yeah reddit did a bang-up job of that. I mean, if you're looking to make an even more racist and inaccurate system than the FBI, anyway. Look, just because one guy kills himself because a digital lynch mob decided he was a criminal for the crime of "being Arab next to crime" and "having the police talk to you", doesn't mean we all need to lose our heads and not give those people access to everything you do online and pay attention to. The thing really holding back domestic surveillance is accountability  .E: Also, to something posted earlier in the thread, if things that a few people momentarily pay attention to every day that seem abnormal when compared to the average person are considered important, if I just let the entire world know what I do on the internet, will the attention economy produce more "clowns farting on pies" porn if I watch it daily? This is important. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Dec 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 00:44
|
|
