|
RealityApologist posted:Calm the gently caress down, jesus. I'm only one person, and I am addressing questions raised in this thread as best I can. It's a shame that I'm the only person defending these ideas in this thread; all the hostility directed at me is also preventing anyone else coming forward and defending these ideas. Who would, with such a hostile crowd? I promise you nothing about my response to you would be hostile in anyway if you respond in earnest to my questions. You are promoting a synthesis of modern technology and societal organization that many people have considered, though not many have taken it to the end that you have. Seeing the same rehash of "well if the system had all the data about our Thanksgiving dinners, heres what this year's would be like" isn't intellectually fulfilling, and doesn't satisfy anything beyond the inquiry "wouldn't it be cool if computers were everywhere and decided everything for us?" I get it, there are ways to solve common problems with innovative processes through your system. Obviously there's a disconnect in your willingness to jump into talking about the hyperfuture where this system is implemented perfectly and there are no problems because of interest groups xyz. You're obviously still dazzled by the possibilities that such a system could bring to the table, but I'm not convinced beyond thinking that's it's a cool idea and that it would be nice if it would work out. I spent the time to think of situations with some historical backing that your system will have to tackle in one way or another. The hostility comes from looking like I was being ignored in favor of explaining away the low hanging fruit of Thanksgiving dinner with your paradigm that is supposed to run the world. Convince me this is something beyond a cool thought experiment and a pipe dream. edit: for page 16: salisbury shake posted:I would provided you can prepare a detailed answer for what I plan on asking about real problems, like: salisbury shake fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Dec 7, 2013 |
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The strong dictatorship OK I could focus on any number of "minor" issues here, such as your conflation of political and economic systems, but I'm going to focus on a major one that I've noticed throughout: Your whole motivation of the "attention economy" is focused on the wrong problem. You have this idea that the problem with the current system is that nobody knows where the resources are needed, and so your proposed solution is to just monitor everyone so we'll all know. And then people are supposed to just allocate resources to this problems they were never aware of out of the goodness of their hearts? You've got it backwards: people know where the need is. If someone wants to donate time or money to help the poor they know where to go. That isn't the problem. The problem with the inequitable distribution of resources in our society isn't that people aren't aware of the poor or can't find them, it's because our system doesn't incentivize directing those resources towards them. If you could fix that problem all this attention monitoring stuff would be superfluous. Your attention economy dinner example basically just assumes that problem's been solved already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
You didn't answer the question. 'Utility' is also a moral and super-ego dominated judgement of what one needs and deserves and so on. A reflexive response to something like a flashlight doesn't inform you at all about what that person values. It doesn't even tell you that much about what they actually feel, because its contingent on the events happening around them. You cannot deduce, for example, what someone desires from what they randomly decide to look at this day or the other. Suppose someone is very thirsty. They need water, but their environment has no water to look at, except a (salt-water) lake. This person then stares at a lake for however long it takes for your magical algorithms to figure out that it is important. What should the algorithm decide, based on only this? Does the lake need upgrading? Maybe it's dirty? Maybe he doesn't like the lake, and it should be drained? Maybe lakes are valuable to communities of people, because of the attention it is receiving, and therefore more lakes should be built? The algorithm determines that the lake should get upgraded, and so sends a crew of people to add more features and wildlife. The citizen has died of dehydration induced heat stroke. rudatron fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:How is this any different from the "strong dictatorship?" All you've done is provide the dictator uncle with absolute surveillance powers that would make the Stasi jealous, and assumed that he's going to act ethically. There is no open, collaborative decision making; it's simply a dictator allocating resources with the aid of a predictive system. And, of course, your example completely fails to address what might happen when there aren't enough resources to go around. It's easy to allocate resources when you have as much as anybody could want; what happens when you catch a whiff of triage? Who decides who goes without? How is it enforced? The difference is that the uncle isn't deciding what courses goes on what plates. If anything, he's making a more fundamental decision about what model to use in order to construct the menu, but the decision isn't arbitrary or to his own preferences. Instead, his choice of model is built to best fit the empirical data, which might be other than his choosing. Since this model and its assumptions are sent around in the conference period for feedback, others might notice places where the model fails to match the data and contribute to correcting it. So while the uncle does indeed have a critical role to play, that role is qualitatively different from the dictator's role in deciding what does on the plates. That's not a decision the uncle is making; its a decision that each guest is making each time they serve themselves, to predict better what they'll want in the future. And again, my example was not meant to address issues where scarcity changes the game dynamics. In a coded system like I'm describing, you might specify some minimum allocation of resources per person, so they meet some humanitarian standard of living (including access to medicine and education). Cases where people are taking far more than their share of the resources, especially in situations where some or most people aren't meeting even the minimal standards, is bound to be of interest to anyone in that economic system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
If your political economy has a literal deus ex machina in it, then your understanding of history and other people is pretty boned. Crazy uncle has this one weird trick to solve politics forever! Economists HATE him!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:By this definition, there is no such thing as a "top-down" system - every kind of system, whether biological or not, requires the individual components of the system to respond to the manipulations passed down from the source of control. You might as well say that flicking a light switch isn't really issuing a top-down command to turn on a light, since you're just connecting a circuit, which affects the behavior of the individual electrons which then proceed to self-organize themselves right into your lightbulb which is what ultimately drives the change. If you're defining a top-down system as one where the behavior isn't able to be defined in terms of how its components interact with each other, then there's not much that's going to ever fit the definition. It's not so much a question of whether you can apply some sort of reductionist analysis since it usually is possible. It's a question as to whether doing so actually provides any sort of explanatory benefit that describing some behavior in terms of the system as a whole wouldn't provide. So does flicking a light switch and the light turning on in response provide an adequate description? Sure. To give an example of a "top-down system", a subway or passenger rail system that maintains headways and keeps a specific schedule does so in order to avoid any interactions between the component trains. During normal operation it's possible to expect the trains to stick to their top-down schedule quite reliably because the trains act in effective isolation. So if we were to guess at what would happen if a line were changed from a 60 minute headway to a 30 minute headway at some time at night, we can guess pretty effectively how the average throughput and latency for the line will change because nothing will affect the train's behavior except for the top down directions. On the other end of the spectrum if a section of roadway were expanded to carry 10,000 cars per hour from 5,000, the effects on any individual car driving on that section of road are very difficult to tell without understanding what all the other cars are doing. If it speeds the road up enough then it might pull other cars from alternate routes looking for a faster alternative. In the middle might be the question of changing the headway on a subway line to a short enough duration that the trains are as close to each other as they can safely be. A delay in one might cause a ripple effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The attention economy (aka, the turkey singularity): For the past five years, the creepy uncle has been taking multi-camera recordings of the Thanksgiving festivities, which has allowed him to make obsessively detailed records over which sides and portions are eaten by each dinner guest each year. The uncle notes not just what sides are given by that year's authority, but also what items were taken in any potential free for all scenario, and also what items were given but uneaten. Using this data, the uncle obsessively builds a model that predicts how much of each course will be needed each year to best fit the aggregate patterns of the guests, and then uses this data to build that year's menu. The menu, and all the collaborating data, is then passed around to all the years guests a few weeks in advance, where they might make suggestions or corrections to the menu. Someone might mention, for instance, a new medical restriction that will change the amount of gravy they'll be consuming this year, or a grievance about the previous year's distribution of food, and the model can be tweaked to fit whatever new information is raised in this stage. Finally, guests can claim responsibility for preparing some portion of that year's menu, with unclaimed but necessary tasks potentially being automatically assigned as the dinner approaches. And then everyone simply follows their chosen or assigned role for the dinner, where they can each take as much as they like for themselves, while trusting that there will be enough for everyone. The model might take a few years to calibrate, but eventually the menus it produces begin to converge arbitrarily close to the total of what everyone likes, within an acceptably small margin of error, and with little excess food produced. If the menu's getting passed around to everyone for input a few weeks before before being put into place, then how is it any different from your "central planning" example? In either case, a theoretical menu is written by one person based on their perceptions of what's necessary, and then everyone involved is allowed to give their input on the proposed menu, which is then adjusted according to that input. The existence of the creepy uncle is completely unnecessary if that input phase is incorporated, and that input phase is required for the creepy uncle to be any better than the other options since there will otherwise be inevitable inaccuracies in his observations, the predictive power of his observations, and of course his models themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
No, you see, instead of a person all the central planning is being done by a computer (programmed by a human based on inputs from humans) and therefore it will work perfectly free of bias and flaw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Are you sure you're in academia? "Hostility", or criticism, should be something you want, for your ideas. Academia has criticism, sure, but it doesn't come in the form of publicly insulting the person. Just sayin'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Academia has criticism, sure, but it doesn't come in the form of publicly insulting the person. You have no knowledge of academia if you think that's true. And anyway, it's criticisms of his ideas that he's whining about as much as criticism of himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Academia has criticism, sure, but it doesn't come in the form of publicly insulting the person. What kind of bizzaro academia have you been exposed to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What kind of bizzaro academia have you been exposed to? This is hilarious, given that I was originally banned for insulting you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Academia has criticism, sure, but it doesn't come in the form of publicly insulting the person. Are you making GBS threads me?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What kind of bizzaro academia have you been exposed to? While academia has a lot of drama and behind-closed-doors backstabbing, I've never seen public insults and band-wagoning like I've seen in this thread. Professors especially tend to be quite civil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:While academia has a lot of drama and behind-closed-doors backstabbing, I've never seen public insults and band-wagoning like I've seen in this thread. Professors especially tend to be quite civil. Considering all the behind-the-back insults I witnessed as a grad student, "civil" is not the word I'd use to describe professors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Considering all the behind-the-back insults I witnessed as a grad student, "civil" is not the word I'd use to describe professors. Notice I said "public." My point stands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:While academia has a lot of drama and behind-closed-doors backstabbing, I've never seen public insults and band-wagoning like I've seen in this thread. Professors especially tend to be quite civil. Nah, professors call each other poo poo publicly all the time, especially at faculty parties. That's why you should always spike the 'nogg. Anyway: He's insulting people right back. The real issue is with his ideas, and the god-awful way that he handwaves away all problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Notice I said "public." My point stands. You are wrong about this. E. I'll be more specific. In several instances, in front of students and other faculty, I have seen several faculty members rail into visiting professors' work. One great occasion was when a professor said the other's work was flat out neoliberal propaganda and should not have been written. \/\/\/\/ See also that post. N. Senada fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Some of the worst beatdowns I've ever seen have been published.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Notice I said "public." My point stands. Your point doesn't stand because your point is about as wrong as you can get about academia. We eat our own. With relish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
Ignore, if you want, the Chicago style of presentation where the audience is empowered to poo poo down the throat of the presenter whenever and however they want. That's one slice of academic culture that, while common, is not the only option. Even the most civil room of well-mannered academics would, at best, be critical of what's been posted here to the point of simmering hostility. There is no rigor. There is no science in the Popperian sense. There are only words. Lots of words. That may be fine if you're looking for a different audience. But the OP here has repeatedly and unabasedly fallen back on his credentials from academia as a crutch. That he cannot address the political economy issues so elegantly wrapped up in the question about Arrow's impossibility theorem on the first or second page was about as much of a dagger as anyone who studies complex political phenomena needs. I would love nothing more than to see the general topic that the OP is passionate about develop into a genuine field of inquiry. This is not how we get there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
Incidentally, this was on Ars Technica today.quote:Microsoft designs smart bra to combat emotional eating This is interesting because it is along the lines of what Eripsa has been saying with regards to the attention economy. The bra in question measures the person's mood, and at appropriate times it provides "distractions" to ensure the person doesn't resort to eating as a result of their boredom or stress. If you think about it, it is a form of attention management: the device is designed with a specific goal (to reduce emotional eating) and then uses attention mechanics to achieve that goal. If further developed into a "social" device, the network effects could open new doors. You're working at your desk one morning and you get a notification on your smartphone that your friend Lisa is feeling bored (based on her device's readings). The network knows that Lisa tends to snack when she's bored, so the app suggests that you send her a text message to ask what she's up to. A conversation starts and Lisa is distracted from emotional eating. It could become a peer support network.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
It's managing attention, but what does that have to do with an "attention economy"? Everything we do has fallen into place (or we've deliberately chosen it) as a way to move forward in a balanced fashion and achieve personal goals. The bra is just a tool, it doesn't care what you're paying attention to, it cares about how stressed out you are. We can get data about people's habits, which is really useful, and use it to design new products and live healthier lives, sure; to which I would say, welcome to scientific and engineering progress, I guess? That's not an attention economy, that's just society and it's iterative, not revolutionary. There's no reason to frame it in terms of who is paying attention to what; that's a simple metaphor at best, maybe a good speech to give at the beginning of a high school multimedia class or something, but it doesn't bear too much digging into. e: and I certainly reject any society that wants to plug me into a live feed of my friends' emotional state, thank you! If I want to know their emotional state I will go ahead and ask them about it. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:e: and I certainly reject any society that wants to plug me into a live feed of my friends' emotional state, thank you! If I want to know their emotional state I will go ahead and ask them about it. Would you say that there is no value in being notified when one of your friends is feeling suicidal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Would you say that there is no value in being notified when one of your friends is feeling suicidal? Should her bra call me first, or a mental health professional? If it's the latter, then that has some interesting implications. "Now Samantha, why aren't you wearing your Anti-Suicide Harness?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Would you say that there is no value in being notified when one of your friends is feeling suicidal? Because if there's one people with suicidal thoughts love, it's a loss of control over their lives, and anyone knowing about their diagnosis! Also now the attention economy can diagnose complex mental disorders. Every time you add a new feature of the machine, you increase the complexity of the algorithms it needs to apply to the data its recieving. I would say this would drastically increase the demands on Eripsa's system, but to be fair, he hasn't mentioned any predictions on what the technical demands his system would have so I can't say for sure what percent increase in processing power this addition to the system would need.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 09:51
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Would you say that there is no value in being notified when one of your friends is feeling suicidal? I'd actually say it's not your business unless that person wants it to be. Assuming a value of friend that doesn't equal their mental health professional. Also, how is this idea not just a way to get around HIPPA and start releasing medical information to people who'd use it for nefarious reasons (i.e. current and future employers) Data mining the poo poo out of people can lead to some huge privacy violations-- the US doesn't care because gently caress the 99% but Europe sure does and for good reason. Eprisa has never really acknowledged this in any of his comment AFAICT, but that's one of the prime flaws with his plan. It gives the majority (or a really interested plurality) another way to gently caress with a protected minority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
salisbury shake posted:I would provided you can prepare a detailed answer for what I plan on asking about real problems, like: how will the attention economy handle the production of child pornography, the viewing of child pornography, the dissemination of child pornography, and living made by people who prop up this child pornography economy? If I was proposing a tripartite federal government with a bicameral legislature, governing semi-independent states with mixed political systems, asking "how does it deal with CP" is not really an illuminating question for understanding the mechanics of the system. If I were to explain to you how CP is actually handled in our system, this really doesn't tell us very much about what speaks in the favor of the system, or what might be wrong with it. So I don't find your question very helpful, nor do I find my responses very helpful either. But here you go. I know virtually nothing of these communities or their dynamics, not even enough to hazard a guess. Presumably there's some small but very motivated group of people interested in CP, and another group of people willing to service them, and still another group highly motivated to search out and destroy these communities. I have no intuitions whatsoever about whether any of these groups are particularly successful, or whether the strategies we currently use for dealing with CP are sufficient, or if the problem could ever be fully eradicated. My only intuition at all is that the topic is often used as an excuse for more extreme government actions, like pushing DRM and the like; this gives me the impression that the problem appears bigger than it really is, but again I might be completely wrong. So I'm not sure what to say here, unless you just want me to speculate wildly about what might happen with the various interested communities as they interact. If the groups of pornographers are small, then perhaps the communities tasked with safety and humanitarian causes would put some of their efforts towards shutting down CP networks. If the problems started to get out of hand or become a more high-profile case, maybe other communities would be enlisted in the cause, in order to organize more resources for the effort. The system I'm offering doesn't have tailor-fit solutions to every problem that might arise; I'm making methodological claims about how to generate solutions. The method is that a signal is escalated and propagated across overlapping communities until it reaches people motivated to resolve the issue. So figuring out how the CP case is dealt with involves specifying which communities have an interest in the issue, and what they would do in order to resolve it. Since, again, I don't know these communities well I have no idea how they might react in these circumstances. However... quote:What algorithm will handle r/jailbait and its proponents? As it just so happens, the last Attention Economy thread (or maybe the one before last?) happened just after /r/jailbait shakedown a year or so back, after SA brought attention to the issue. From what I remember, SA goons had a long, active thread about how bad the jailbait problem on reddit had become. The thread attracted so much interest and discussion that the story was picked up by larger media outlets (like HuffPo), eventually resulting in action (naming responsible people on reddit, getting police involved) being taken to shut down those fora and widespread condemnation of the practice. Did this completely eradicate the jailbait on reddit? Of course not. But it is certainly less blatant than it was when SA first started making a stink, and now that there's been a successful action concerning the matter we'll all know better next time for how to react if it becomes a problem again. Again, this doesn't kill CP; it doesn't even kill it on reddit. But the action has an impact on how the issue is handled by all the interested parties. It might drive CP underground even more, making it that much harder to call attention to the matter. But it also reinforces the norms of the rest of society, making explicit that the general consensus is that such behavior isn't acceptable, and engaging it in will make you the target of the crowd. Some extreme elements of the anti-CP group might overstep that consensus by attempting vigilante justice but hunting down and humiliating the CPers; this might result in an opposite form of extremism that attempts to assert the legitimacy of CP enthusists against their attackers. Both sides might see their cause as incredibly important and worth the devotion of the resources at their command, but fortunately they aren't the ones deciding these things. What matters on my system is the overall consensus of how important the issue is; if they think they need more assistance in their cause, they have to make the case for it in public, or among the communities to which they are appealing. So in that original thread, I pointed to the behavior of goons in response to /r/jailbait as an example of exactly the kind of self-organized, successful response I'm talking about. It's not a complete solution, but it's a good example of how overlapping communities might address an issue and raise it to the level of wider public consciousness, so that it can be dealt with in a way that reinforces the norms and values of those communities. This example was rejected for some reason in that thread, amid a slew of insults and slander hostile interpretations, but I can't remember why. quote:What about other self-organizing groups like terrorist cells? How will it respond to subjective accusations of persecution if this group of people's desires and pursuits are 'constrained' by the system? How will it weigh those against those of the children or victims of more obvious 'rights' violations? What rights are going to be hardcoded? Am I wrong to assume that they will reflect our American views of what count as rights, or will the system determine a new set of rights based on the data? These are good questions. I've never claimed that I can resolve questions like these, even in the general case. I'm only proposing a framework in which these questions can be discussed, and I've tried to show that mine is qualitatively different from the existing social frameworks already on the table. The actual solution to these questions will be the result of the actual activity of the interested communities, and nothing I've said implies I can predict that activity in advance, much less anyone else. It is worth noting, however, that the systems already on the table don't do a great job with these questions either (see: Mandela on the terrorist watchlist well into Bush 42's presidency). My system doesn't guarantee a correct solution, it merely proposes a method for coming to solutions that is different enough from the existing order to offer a serious point of comparison. In particular, I've emphasized the participatory feedback from all parties, and the use of empirically-derived predictive models of behavior. Although other political systems might appeal to these methods to ensure their control, only my proposal builds them into the fundamental infrastructure of the system to explicitly discuss how they might be used. If eg my group gets unfairly targeted as a terrorist group, then in the existing system I'm required to appeal to a narrow bureaucratic institution that holds all the political power over me, including the evidence and criteria by which I've received the designation. In an attention economy, I'm empowered to appeal directly to communities that I participate in, using records and evidence available for anyone interested to consider, in order to receive justice as the consensus of the crowd sees fit. I'm not saying it is a utopic vision that will correct all of society's ills, but it's certainly different than what we have now, and I don't think it's unreasonable to prefer it. quote:What entities are going to design and then implement this system? What incentives exist to not design the system in their favor? How is this system going to keep powerful and monied interests from colluding to control it, assuming they aren't the ones building it (they are)? How does this begin to mitigate the ills brought on by increasingly liberalized law and trade rather than amplifying them pre-complete implementation and then casting them forever in stone? Are there areas of the world that will be outside of the scope of this system? tldr: How does this system avoid a power imbalance in favor of those who either design or administer it? These are all problems that exist on, wikipedia, which suggests at the very least that it is possible for a open, public system to be successful and reliable despite these challenges. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it works drat well despite its flaws, and it is undoubtedly better than any encyclopedia that has come before it. I would argue that s moderation system that is run openly like wikipedia but invested with genuine political authority would see far more activity from more diverse and engaged quarters than what we see on wikipedia today. Moreover, if we had records of all the activity (IP addresses and the like), then there would be an active, committed group of critics coming from all perspectives, who would subject that activity to a level of scrutiny that journalists today can only dream of. In other words, the same basic mechanisms used to check and constrain Wikipedia in order to keep it useful would seem to scale well to similar methods being used to moderate public policy. At least, no one in this thread has given any real reason to suggest otherwise. Right now all that information is available on wikipedia too, and occasionally we see communities coming forward to call out the wiki moderators for what they see as bad practices. These events always cause some discussion and reflection on policies and guidelines and values. If people don't seem to care too much because wikipedia works well enough, and most people judge that they have better things to do than worry about how some niche disputes on the wiki gets resolved. But if these were active debates about real policy issues, where the results become codified into systemic practice, you might see more people take interest and get involved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
captainbananas posted:That he cannot address the political economy issues so elegantly wrapped up in the question about Arrow's impossibility theorem on the first or second page was about as much of a dagger as anyone who studies complex political phenomena needs. I think it's pretty clear from the thread that I'm denying the unanimity constraint on Arrow's theorem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
How the hell do you think this is some sort of deep insight? I don't get it. What's the revelation here supposed to be? You're acting like people have denied the truism of "when people pay attention to stuff, that stuff often gets worked on/something happens because of the attention". That's a completely obvious, facile truth. What you've been arguing is a system that can in some way interpret what should happen. If the 'attention economy' is just people paying attention to poo poo, then, again, that already happens. But this isn't what you actually mean, because you started off talking about actually tracking eye-attention, what people are looking at--you were making a much more visceral claim, of actual physical attention being important. The 'attention' of what people are actually physically looking at is completely different from the 'attention' of people posting about or talking about a news story. The first is passive, the second is intentional, and yet you conflate them. This is just one of the ways your argument meanders. It's not even like you move the goalposts, it's like you've made the goalposts into skis and are just happily gliding around on them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I'd actually say it's not your business unless that person wants it to be. Assuming a value of friend that doesn't equal their mental health professional. Also, how is this idea not just a way to get around HIPPA and start releasing medical information to people who'd use it for nefarious reasons (i.e. current and future employers) Data mining the poo poo out of people can lead to some huge privacy violations-- the US doesn't care because gently caress the 99% but Europe sure does and for good reason. Eprisa has never really acknowledged this in any of his comment AFAICT, but that's one of the prime flaws with his plan. It gives the majority (or a really interested plurality) another way to gently caress with a protected minority. I said in the OP that privacy is a setting, not a right. Somewhere in this thread I elaborated that if one chooses not to share their information, then they won't receive any of the social benefits it might accrue in an economy of attention, and will be stuck with default values that might be a pain in the rear end. For instance, if I don't let Chrome store my address, then I'm forced to type it out every time I need to use it because the default values for the form is blank. Most of the time we'll trade privacy for convenience, and if I really care about privacy then I'm stuck with doing the extra work. I've argued that people should be allowed the option for keeping things private, but we shouldn't lament the fact that they'd rather have the convenience. This trade off in privacy should be accompanied with a reduction in the disparity of knowledge/power between parties. Or at least, that would be the case if privacy were traded in exchange for public utility, as I'm arguing. On my system, your information is partially public, but no one is put in a position of authority (like an "employer") where they might use that information against you, or use it to deprive you of your livelihood. There simply are no institutional authorities in my system that can leverage that knowledge against your institutional role. So giving up your information isn't making any private parties more powerful. In the existing system, in contrast, privacy is usually traded to private or closed parties (like Facebook or the NSA) who not only can use that information against you, but can also use it as a competitive advantage over other private parties, with no functional guarantees for the user beyond the convenience of the service itself. So in the existing world, the user has to be careful that the wrong party doesn't acquire their information, whereas that's not a systemic issue with mine. There are other nefarious uses of private data besides employment discrimination, where no institutional authorities are involved, like bullying and harassment. Those would require other sorts of discussions to treat, because they are more complex social phenomena. But the simple case of an abuse of authority is more straightforward, because in my system there are no such authorities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:So I'm not sure what to say here, unless you just want me to speculate wildly about what might happen with the various interested communities as they interact. If the groups of pornographers are small, then perhaps the communities tasked with safety and humanitarian causes would put some of their efforts towards shutting down CP networks. If the problems started to get out of hand or become a more high-profile case, maybe other communities would be enlisted in the cause, in order to organize more resources for the effort. The system I'm offering doesn't have tailor-fit solutions to every problem that might arise; I'm making methodological claims about how to generate solutions. You're one of the few people I've read who can make the statement "I am ignorant of what you're talking about and have no desire to educate myself" sound like a sort of wounded accusation. See also: RealityApologist posted:I don't give a poo poo about anything in this post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:How the hell do you think this is some sort of deep insight? I don't get it. What's the revelation here supposed to be? You're acting like people have denied the truism of "when people pay attention to stuff, that stuff often gets worked on/something happens because of the attention". That's a completely obvious, facile truth. What you've been arguing is a system that can in some way interpret what should happen. If the 'attention economy' is just people paying attention to poo poo, then, again, that already happens. But this isn't what you actually mean, because you started off talking about actually tracking eye-attention, what people are looking at--you were making a much more visceral claim, of actual physical attention being important. The 'attention' of what people are actually physically looking at is completely different from the 'attention' of people posting about or talking about a news story. The first is passive, the second is intentional, and yet you conflate them. You've systematically shown no comprehension whatsoever of the content in this thread. Almost everything you've said in this thread has been a strawman borne of deliberately hostile misinterpretations and knee-jerk bandwagonism. Poor reading comprehension and male social jockeying displays do not constitute an "academic smackdown"; you've all shown the intellectual prowess of a frat house after a lame kegger. I've clearly not just said "people pay attention to poo poo", I've suggested precisely that we build our formal systems of governance and economics around the dynamics of attention, thereby investing those dynamics directly with the authority to manage the organization of the system. Today we have a system where the dynamics of attention are arbitrarily related to the actual policy governing and constraining the behavior of the system, and there are layers and layers of inflexible bureaucratic tape that stands in the way both of good decision making and responsive feedback from the people it effects. We have this system largely as a legacy issue from the agricultural age, where coordinated central planning really was a better solution for a growing and settled population than the more attention-oriented dynamics of small groups. I'm arguing that technologies available today allow us to recreate the attention dynamics and signals that allow large distributed digital populations behave with the same flexibility and decentralized coordination as our small-group ancestors, and that for at least some organizational functions it is a preferable alternative to a centralized hierarchy. The paragraph above just repeats things I've already said in this thread, and adds nothing new to the conversation. You need me to repeat it, though, because apparently you haven't understood a goddamned thing in this thread and want me to hold your hand and tell you the story again. I've apologized for my inability to articulate complex thoughts clearly, and I'm doing my best to clarify and deal with criticism as I can. I'm clearly not toblerone-triangle levels of crazy, no matter how much it is repeated in this thread. I'm just earnest; I'm a try-hard, and in privileged male populations like this, being a try-hard is often sufficient for social condemnation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You've systematically shown no comprehension whatsoever of the content in this thread. Almost everything you've said in this thread has been a strawman borne of deliberately hostile misinterpretations and knee-jerk bandwagonism. Poor reading comprehension and male social jockeying displays do not constitute an "academic smackdown"; you've all shown the intellectual prowess of a frat house after a lame kegger. These are all assertions: Instead of just huffing, show how I created strawmen, demonstrate how my interpretations are deliberately hostile. quote:I've clearly not just said "people pay attention to poo poo", I've suggested precisely that we build our formal systems of governance and economics around the dynamics of attention, thereby investing those dynamics directly with the authority to manage the organization of the system. And you conflate things as disparate as 'what people look at' and 'what people post on the internet about' as 'attention'. You began with an idea of actual physical attention, and now you're working in deliberate societal attention--something totally uncontroversial as a mechanism whereby poo poo happens--with that. That is a critique: it is based on an observation of a flaw in your argument. Responding to it would be demonstrating that my criticism is in some way incorrect, or that I have misunderstood something you've said. It doesn't involve just asserting that. quote:We have this system largely as a legacy issue from the agricultural age, where coordinated central planning really was a better solution for a growing and settled population than the more attention-oriented dynamics of small groups. There was no 'agricultural age'. I have no idea what you mean by that term--yet another thing you just toss into the mix without defining it. If you mean 'pre-industrial revolution', then no, agriculture was not organized by coordinated central planning in pre-industrial times. There were a few places it were, but in general that's an incorrect statement. Can you explain why you think it's true, and what the 'agricultural age' was? A great thing to include here would be something called evidence. Edit: Are you trying to talk about manorialism? quote:I'm arguing that technologies available today allow us to recreate the attention dynamics and signals that allow large distributed digital populations behave with the same flexibility and decentralized coordination as our small-group ancestors, and that for at least some organizational functions it is a preferable alternative to a centralized hierarchy. No, you are assiduously avoiding arguing that. What you are doing is asserting it, over and over. quote:I'm just earnest; I'm a try-hard, and in privileged male populations like this, being a try-hard is often sufficient for social condemnation. How, from a purely pragmatic perspective, can you not notice that pitying yourself over and over again just detracts from your argument? Why do you continue to wine about your treatment? What do you think is going to happen by continually passively-aggressively putting on a martyr cloak about the privileged people you're debating? By the way, I go to Hunter College. It's not exactly privilege central there, though I love it. You go to Columbia. Why are you trying to wave this 'privilege' flag around when you're at an Ivy League school? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The method is that a signal is escalated and propagated across overlapping communities until it reaches people motivated to resolve the issue. You know what? I'll give you an even simpler softball question to think about. In the town of Exampleville, there's a river. And there's one particular spot that is broadly considered ideal to construct a bridge. This bridge will make the lives of everyone in Exampleville better, so there's general approval towards the idea of constructing a bridge. However, building a bridge requires resources. It takes steel and concrete and skilled labor. Resources in Exampleville are limited, and any resources that go towards bridge-building are not going towards other endeavors such as farming or child-rearing or education or the construction of a new church or whatever. Now, in the U.S., the elected Exampleville city council could handle this by hiring an engineering firm with money (which can be exchanged for goods and services) which was issued by the U.S. government and taxed by the Township of Exampleville to make an estimate of the cost of building the bridge. Then they could draft a bill put to a public vote to borrow the money necessary to construct the bridge now, while temporarily increasing taxation in order to pay off the loan. (Funding might be available from the State or Federal government or even private entities, NGOS, or foriegn governments, but that's beyond the scope of this question.) Once it had the money, the town would use it to hire contractors, purchase materials, and rent tools in order to build the bridge. Alternately, the vote could fail because the public support isn't there, and no bridge is built. How would the Attention Economy handle this situation? How is the Attention Economy's solution better than the currently-existing answer? What are the costs of implementing the Attention Economy's solution rather than the US's solution?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:There are other nefarious uses of private data besides employment discrimination, where no institutional authorities are involved, like bullying and harassment. Those would require other sorts of discussions to treat, because they are more complex social phenomena. But the simple case of an abuse of authority is more straightforward, because in my system there are no such authorities. RealityApologist posted:The paragraph above just repeats things I've already said in this thread, and adds nothing new to the conversation. You need me to repeat it, though, because apparently you haven't understood a goddamned thing in this thread and want me to hold your hand and tell you the story again. I've apologized for my inability to articulate complex thoughts clearly, and I'm doing my best to clarify and deal with criticism as I can. I'm clearly not toblerone-triangle levels of crazy, no matter how much it is repeated in this thread. I'm just earnest; I'm a try-hard, and in privileged male populations like this, being a try-hard is often sufficient for social condemnation. Communication isn't something that happens on your end and then it's up to everyone else to just "get it", communication is what happens in the space between two or more people. That means establishing some common ground (Such as definitions and the scope of the topic), and from there you can then begin arguing your case. If you don't establish it however, communication becomes impossible. As far as I can tell, the problem is basically that you've decided that the creation of a common understanding revolves around everyone else going over to you, instead of you trying to bridge that gap by trying to understand our perception of the world. Given that not only does it seem like everyone else has much more in common with each other than they do with you on this topic, you're also the one trying to sell us on an idea, it's really up to you to establish proper communication. Generally I find that doing that will naturally lead to everyone else opening up to you as well, which then allows proper discussion. When you get all pissy because people don't understand you though, the natural reaction is to just write you off as a crank.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I said in the OP that privacy is a setting, not a right. Somewhere in this thread I elaborated that if one chooses not to share their information, then they won't receive any of the social benefits it might accrue in an economy of attention, and will be stuck with default values that might be a pain in the rear end. For instance, if I don't let Chrome store my address, then I'm forced to type it out every time I need to use it because the default values for the form is blank. Most of the time we'll trade privacy for convenience, and if I really care about privacy then I'm stuck with doing the extra work. I've argued that people should be allowed the option for keeping things private, but we shouldn't lament the fact that they'd rather have the convenience. Wow, so you like throwing away constitutional rights on a whim. Good show, which one is next on the chopping block-- free speech or equal protection? Seriously, you can talk about anarchist (or really in your case ancap) as if it's going to provide freedom for people, but the rest of us know what has happened every time anarchy happens-- the strongest (and often worst) person gets to climb his way to power atop a pile of corpses. Your closed parties are authority figures, and will use their authority to poo poo on the minorities that they don't like. The only thing that can prevent this is a larger and powerful authority. In almost every case, this is a liberal democratic government that steps in or is forced to step in to enforce equality under law. Your system doesn't have anything explicitly designed to so, so I either have to trust your handwaving (a bad idea since technocrats in the past have failed to fix these things) or else assume that racial, class, sexual, and gender minorities will get poo poo on. Honestly, it's like you haven't put any real thought into this part of your theory. Or, as with most singularity Utopians, you simply don't care about anybody less wealthy, white, straight, and male than you. You can refute this if you show me explicit mechanisms in your theory to both protect minority rights, and keep non-governmental organizations from gaining authority and effectively becoming governments themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Honestly, it's like you haven't put any real thought into this part of your theory. Or, as with most singularity Utopians, you simply don't care about anybody less wealthy, white, straight, and male than you. You can refute this if you show me explicit mechanisms in your theory to both protect minority rights, and keep non-governmental organizations from gaining authority and effectively becoming governments themselves. He's not a singularity utopian. Whatever the Singularity may be, if you start from the premise that it can exist, it seems safe to say the other side involves a post-scarcity society. There is no need for any of Eripsa's utter nonsense if you can just replicate your way to infinite resources/everyone lives in (the Oort) cloud/some other wizard does it. RealityApologist posted:And again, my example was not meant to address issues where scarcity changes the game dynamics. Instead, Eripsa is *starting with* a Singularity scenario, bolting a creepy uncle on top of it, then acting offended that we don't immediately see his genius while handwaving away all the other unimportant things like the practicality of creepy uncles in 2013 (but we totally have the computing power right now guys) and why creepy uncles are a net benefit. Anyway, this is way more seriousness than he deserves so this is your obligatory reminder: Adar posted:It would probably be helpful to your cause if you could at least point out why Captain Dunning lost Napoleon the war with his reckless charge right into Corporal Kruger's forces. RealityApologist posted:I don't give a poo poo about anything in this post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Also, in the attention economy, there is no need for free speech because staring at the man with the gun already validates that he's much more important than the separatist rebellion cell you were talking to
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
Also also, equal protection sounds suspiciously like promoting equal time for dog and cat videos and we can't have that *shoots dog on livecam, Attention Rating triples*
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 19:45
|
|