most of the tasks an automation algorithm would have to perform in the world are actually pretty simple. once you stop wasting human resources on self-driving cars & toy models, all those tasks can be automated, since all they require are well-trained AlphaZero's (probably less)
-
-
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @baroquespiral and
I'm sorry but this is common-sensical pre-critical claptrap. I'll answer it in kind: "Anything that can't even drive a car can't do management".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @anti_minotaur @baroquespiral and
you're overestimating the complexity of most middle management. driving cars is way more complex.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @anti_minotaur and
"AI could be better at capitalism than humans" is imo a sort of tautology that doesn't really prove anything (specifically, whether CAPITALISM is identical with intelligence). the possibility of inventing capitalism entails the possibility of inventing something better at it
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @baroquespiral @anti_minotaur and
the affirmation underlying Land's thesis - which I think is accurate - is that AI and Capital are the same thing. "capitalism" is very complicated in this setting - but one could think of it as "partially autonomous capital".
2 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @baroquespiral and
Land is correct, of course. AI, capital, intelligence, agency, etc., are all different instances of the same underlying thermodynamic structure. See, e.g.,https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.168702 …
5 replies 2 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @metadiogenes @cyborg_nomade and
The problem is that the notion of 'capital' here lies completely outside of both the economics and Marxist traditions; it's misleading esoterica that belies its actual status as either a stock of resources or an economic/social relationship
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Josh86480104 @cyborg_nomade and
Then read "capital" as "means of production", or "technology", I guess. Don't see how this affects the essential point about energy flows in non-equilibrium systems. Creating notions outside of existing frameworks is probably a feature not a bug.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @metadiogenes @cyborg_nomade and
Sure; it's a sort of metaphysics of existence-as-decay ala Prigogine or Cioran, but it's baffling that capital gets invoked in these discussions about social thermodynamics and the entropic irreversibility of time
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Josh86480104 @cyborg_nomade and
Capital is a key example of life-like things which operate against decay/entropy. It extracts resources from its environment, converts them into work and entropy, and invests the work in its future productive capacity. We can handwave all negentropy as "capital". Why not capital?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Would you be able to describe to me what thermodynamics is? Feel free to consult with wikipedia.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Josh86480104 and
Lol. What is the point of asking such a bad faith question? If you have something to say, say it.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @metadiogenes @Josh86480104 and
No it is a genuine question: how can one commensurate first and the second laws with the tropes you have mentioned? My apologies if I came as obnoxiously condescending.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.