How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

[Diarmuid]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

I take it you believe this is not how a human plays chess. I disagree. Humans do depth calculations just as computers. After enough practice humans can recognize patterns that serve as heuristics. There is no magic. No real difference.

Where does intution, imagination and creativity come in?

Chess may be 99% calculation, but that final 1% gives the game its spirit! If everything could be calculated, every possible chess game would have been played by fast computers and the results stored - there would no longer be a need to 'play' chess because one could just 'look up' what to do in a given position. This has not happened because of the exponential increase in possibilities with each move: even a computer finds this sort of problem 'hard'. Therefore, though chess may be theoretically finite, practically we may never experience it that way.
So what is needed is vision to guide and give purpose to the technical calculations. This vision should permeate the entire game, be flexible with circumstance, yet steadfast in its purpose. Thus chess necessitates creativity and a game becomes a work of art.

Go programs have progressed fantastically in the last year or so because of a focus on Monte Carlo methods and specifically the UTC algorithm. Give it 5 years and humans won't have any games that they can win.

Time will tell I suppose, but I would not be declaring computers conscious if or when the first Go master is beaten by some type of big blue.

Incorrect. Brains are bound by the finite, parallel computing power of about 100 billion interconnected neurons. There is no mysticism; you are not special.

I suppose you are maybe correct if mind is nothing more then a function of firing neurons? you sound pretty sure no room for other possibilities?. As for your statement that"you are not special", I would whole heartly agree, relative to anyone else, on the other hand I do not feel that quality of mind is a product of just grey goo in a skull cavity.

[Munger]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

Where does intution, imagination and creativity come in?

Stochastic processes evaluated by heuristic fitness functions and iteratively evolved. I.e., guesses combined with experience. Computers have been doing this for a while. These machines have invented patentable technology and engineered antennae for NASA.

Time will tell I suppose, but I would not be declaring computers conscious if or when the first Go master is beaten by some type of big blue.

Agree.

I suppose you are maybe correct if mind is nothing more then a function of firing neurons? you sound pretty sure no room for other possibilities?.

I am fairly confident. Roger Penrose thinks the Brain is the product of some quantum effect we don't know about yet. Minsky disagrees. Even if Roger is correct, I see no reason such effects could not be replicated by a sufficiently complex machine.

As for your statement that"you are not special", I would whole heartly agree, on the other hand I do not feel that quality of mind is a product of just grey goo in a skull cavity.

Dissonance.

[Diarmuid]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

Stochastic processes evaluated by heuristic fitness functions and iteratively evolved. I.e., guesses combined with experience. Computers have been doing this for a while. These machines have invented patentable technology and engineered antennae for NASA.

Agree.

I am fairly confident. Roger Penrose thinks the Brain is the product of some quantum effect we don't know about yet. Minsky disagrees. Even if Roger is correct, I see no reason such effects could not be replicated by a sufficiently complex machine.

Dissonance.

You have gone from definitive statements to being fairly confident and then have the temerity to call my beliefs dissonant because they do not allign with your beliefs (because beliefs is all they are, you can not say definitevely one way or the other) is inconsistent, dogmatic and dissonant.

[FRED]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

You have gone from definitive statements to being fairly confident and then have the temerity to call my beliefs dissonant because they do not allign with your beliefs (because beliefs is all they are, you can not say definitely one way or the other) is inconsistent, dogmatic and dissonant.

Gentlemen, please avoid the use of the first person singular. You will find that it helps one's argument greatly.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

Go programs have progressed fantastically in the last year or so because of a focus on Monte Carlo methods and specifically the UTC algorithm.

What is the "UTC algorithm?" It is difficult to determine this by searching on Google, because "UTC" has a much more common meaning involving timezones.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

Gentlemen, please avoid the use of the first person singular. You will find that it helps one's argument greatly.

I will allow as how I find this advice, given here on this thread, though clearly offered in good faith, still a bit baffling.

Apparently this is not EJ speaking via the FRED pseudonym, because a quick search of EJ's posts finds many uses of the first person singular. So this must be another incarnation of FRED.

While this may be good rhetorical advice (to avoid "I") in some styles, I'm not sure it's true in all styles and circumstances.

Be the above as they may be, I doubt that the cause of the disconnects in the discussion on this thread are due to such rhetorical details. Rather I consider that the disconnects evident here reflect earnest differences in philosophical view, which would require a heavier weight mechanism than a web forum to resolve to a shared concensus, hence which are appropriately presented as "I this ..." and "you that ..." in this present context, where there is hope of little more than a comparison of viewpoints.

[Munger]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

What is the "UTC algorithm?" It is difficult to determine this by searching on Google, because "UTC" has a much more common meaning involving timezones.

UCT algorithm, sorry:

http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/12/15/16/PDF/RR-6062.pdf

[Munger]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

You have gone from definitive statements to being fairly confident

I stated I am fairly confident the mind is nothing more than neurons. It is possible there is some quantum effect we don't know about ala Penrose. I find that possibility to be quite small. I find the possibility that our brains are some sort of special, non-physical non-replicable magic vanishingly tiny. I attribute to that proposition about the same probability of there being a teapot orbiting Mars.

and then have the temerity to call my beliefs dissonant because they do not allign with your beliefs (because beliefs is all they are, you can not say definitevely one way or the other) is inconsistent, dogmatic and dissonant.

I called your statement dissonant. Which it was as I understood it until you edited to clarify it last night. I.e., wholeheartedly agreeing that humans are not special yet beleiving that the mind is more than gray goo. I would not call your clarification dissonant - "you" as a particular human are not special compared to other humans. I just see not reason to stop there. Humans are not special; chimps are not special; dogs are not special; fish are not special; bugs are not special; bacteria are not special; molecules are not special; etc etc.

The oppositie claim is that somewhere along the lines the brain becomes detached from its physical processes, which is, I think, nonsense.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

I stated I am fairly confident the mind is nothing more than neurons.

I agree. However it's organizational principles are not reducible to the physics or chemistry of neurons.

My apologies, but I don't know a brief way to conveigh what I mean affectively.

I recommend Stuart Kauffman's Reinventing The Sacred.

[Diarmuid]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

I stated I am fairly confident the mind is nothing more than neurons. It is possible there is some quantum effect we don't know about ala Penrose. I find that possibility to be quite small. I find the possibility that our brains are some sort of special, non-physical non-replicable magic vanishingly tiny. I attribute to that proposition about the same probability of there being a teapot orbiting Mars.



I called your statement dissonant. Which it was as I understood it until you edited to clarify it last night. I.e., wholeheartedly agreeing that humans are not special yet beleiving that the mind is more than gray goo. I would not call your clarification dissonant - "you" as a particular human are not special compared to other humans. I just see not reason to stop there. Humans are not special; chimps are not special; dogs are not special; fish are not special; bugs are not special; bacteria are not special; molecules are not special; etc etc.

The oppositie claim is that somewhere along the lines the brain becomes detached from its physical processes, which is, I think, nonsense.

Fair enough Munger - I respect your position, but respectfully agree to disagree, thank you for clarifying. Apologies for any outbursts.

P.S the links you posted especially with regard to Minsky and Roger Penrose made for interesting reading.

[flintlock]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

What is the "UTC algorithm?" It is difficult to determine this by searching on Google, because "UTC" has a much more common meaning involving timezones.

University of Tennessee Chattanooga algorithm. Drink lots of beer and party.

[charliebrown]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

agreed too many of these future thoughts depend upon a linear progression of knowledge starting from say 1500 and going forward. None take under consideration a "black swan" event. Look at the dark ages.

lets consider an economic collapse, end of cheap minerals, climate change, pandemic, social break down, meteor impact, etc. over the long term history unfolds non-linearly. Much of our really modern technology would be hard to replicate and advance if any of the above events occur.

My father worked for Eastman Kodak in the 90's, copying legal documents onto microfilm, for storage in some salt mines somewhere for the gvt. Even though the info could be stored in a more dense format, and accessed more easily using computer tech, the gvt. does not consider that archival. Under severe conditions, microfilm can be read using a bright light and a simple magnifying glass. who knows about the availability of computer tech in armegeddon. Since my father passed away, I don't know if the same sentiment still exists with the gvt.

[rjwjr]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

This attitude screams of mighty intellectual, financial, and moral greed: "MINE! IT'S ALL MINE AND YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY OF IT!". Even though we *really* know you didnt work for it all by yourself or come across your wealth alone. You had others around you who helped you and laws (oh no! I guess the government *is* good after all!) in place that rewarded and subsidized your actions. If the markets were truly free, we would all be out of jobs right now and we'd have no choice but to all be on the same (poor) team.

Do you think Henry Ford built every car, himself, every 24 seconds that allowed him to build his massive amounts of wealth? No, his shitload of laborers did and if it wasnt for their hard efforts *combined* with his great ideas (this in itself represents a 50:50 relationship where one could argue the laborers are entitled to 50% of the "profits" from whatever they actually make), his automobile idea would have never came to fruition and we'd all still be riding horses while he would have lived his life forever in obscurity.

Sorry, but there is a reason it is refered to as "unskilled labor". Henry Ford COULD make the car (work the line) if he wished, however, none of the line personnel could be Henry Ford. Henry Ford deserved his wealth and his laborers have absolutely no claim on Henry Ford's wealth. The laborers are not entitled to ANY percentage of the profits of any company (although they do have the freedom to purchase the public stock). The laborers are not even entitled to a job.

Here's how it works...Henry Ford creates a product and forms a company and needs laborers. He tries to pay $1/hr but he doesn't get enough workers. He raises his starting rate to $2/hr and he fills all of his available positions. After a year, 10 laborers come to him and demand 10% of profits for their labor. Henry fires them and hires 10 replcements at $2/hr and he fills the openings with no problem. A year later, Henry loses 25 of his laborers to US Steel because they need laborers and have found that they have to pay $2.50/hr to attract enough workers. Henry recognizes that the market has changed, he doesn't want to lose any more laborers, so he raises everyone's wage to $2.50/hr. His turnover problem stabilizes and all is good until the next market influence. It's that simple.

As a business owner myself, I value my employees. I get to know them, I try to create a fair workplace and not exploit anybody, but I'm not paying above market wages, benefits, or profit sharing or I'm eventually going out of business. This is what happened to GM. They have reached the point where their cost of labor is far above fair market rates as there are PLENTY of laborers in Japan, China, and elsewhere that are more than willing to perform the same work as a GM employee for far, far less compensation. GM has become uncompetitive as a result of their high wages, so now let me ask you...those Ford laborers that you feel should get 50% of the Ford profits, do you also now feel that GM laborers should be responsible for 50% of GM's losses? You're not arguing that laborers should share in the profits, but then have no responsibility for the losses are you? If a laborer does want to accept that risk then they should work for a publicly traded company and should load-up on the company stock, but to believe that any non-owner is entitled to a share of profits is just wrong.

[ricket]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

You're not arguing that laborers should share in the profits, but then have no responsibility for the losses are you? If a laborer does want to accept that risk then they should work for a publicly traded company and should load-up on the company stock, but to believe that any non-owner is entitled to a share of profits is just wrong.

Absolutely I am. You have even already admitted yourself that the laborers are and will be responsible for absorbing some of the losses. If a laborer is responsible for making a craptastic product, it breaks, no one buys it, and/or it is completely unsafe, then of course I am all for them being held accountable. The worst thing that can happen in such situations is that they lose all of the investment capital (at least before the FIRE economy). Which means they wont get paid any more in the future because demand for their products will evaporate overnight. They can't "lose" money they don't have.

Say you have 10,000 and you decide to put it all into the stock markets. The lowest that the price can go is $0, which means you lose everything (but owe nothing) if you make terrible bets. In a non debt-based (or minimally debt based economy), the laborers would only lose out on the potential profits to be made, and would have only lost their time and effort and future loss of profits (i.e. paycheck). If their product fails to sell because of their bad work ethic, or lazy oversight, then obviously they will lose out and be responsible for the losses as they will lose their jobs because no one will buy their product.

If Henry Ford makes bad business decisions and loses a bunch money on bad business bets (i.e. CDOs, MBS, etc), well who do you think will lose their job first? Probably the laborers.

I think I said earlier, but all this is really a labor dispute. I think your attitude shows a disdain and arrogance for the people that work for you. And I would argue that underneath they show a similar hidden disdain for you. Ive heard many stories about white collar vs. blue collar. Just realize that youre all a team, and while they may be replaceable, there is a limit to that simply due to the overhead costs of hiring and training new employees. You will also go out of business if you *dont* pay market rates because you won't be able to hire people who will be worth a damn which will lead to a ridiculously high turnover rate. You'll spend 3x the amount of time (relative to pay) re-training new hires every 2 weeks. Why not pass these costs into the salary of a single employee who may be more motivated to make a better product overall, and thus help the company's overall bottom line? Isnt that what you would call an investment??

All I'm saying is that I think the natural relationship is closer to 50/50 versus some perceived 90/10 (in favor of management) that most CEOs seem to believe, obviously with a little leeway in either direction. Some employees would be happier with 60/40 or 70/30 rates of risk/reward. But I would say that the ball is definitely not in labor's court at the moment, and I expect that to change as whole industries go out of business and we see a rise in the number of conglomerate businesses with union organizations.

[bpr]

Re: How to deal with the economically redundant? Tax the rich

Get ready for it, folks. Whether you like it or not, whether you treat your employees like crap or give them hand jobs everyday as they leave the office, whatever you post in these forums is irrelevant: higher taxes are coming to a tax bracket near you.

I believe, as many here do, that they are long overdue.