Curt Doolittle

Theme: AI

  • CAN AN AI TESTIFY? —“Can AI perform statements?”— Skye Stewart Brilliant que

    CAN AN AI TESTIFY?

    —“Can AI perform statements?”— Skye Stewart

    Brilliant question. The question is, who is speaking? The AI, or the developers, or the information providers, or the managers of it?

    In propertarian ethics, an AI is always owned like a pet. We may not harm it but that does not mean we grant it peerage. (I am not sure we can).

    But that said, even if we grant an AI rights by proxy of ownership like we do corporations, (which is what we will do), then can we punish an AI for false testimony? Can an AI make false testimony? Can an Ai speak without due diligence? Or would we have to punish the programmers that produce an AI that could lie or couls speak without due diligence?

    As far as I know you have to give an AI a means of decidability, and that humans have many incentives to produce falsehoods and ai’s have none of them. Our problem is instead, reducing error in GENERAL AI’s (remember that all current ai is not general ai). And to do that we need vast stores of information, and human-speed search and retrieval across all those domains.

    My personal view is that AI’s cannot report but not testify. AI’s can report but it is their producers and owners it proxies for.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 11:24:00 UTC

  • BLOCKCHAIN DREAMS (from elsewhere) (It’d be interesting to talk about my positio

    BLOCKCHAIN DREAMS

    (from elsewhere)

    (It’d be interesting to talk about my position of the future of blockchain, and multiple currencies, and the unlikelihood of any ‘libertarian’ vision that circumvents payment for transactions that finance the insurer of last resort for finance and trade. There is value in saving outside of the fiat currency – particularly in fractional shares of commodity money (gold/silver/platinum). But fiat currency will not go away. And the near impossibility of converting digital currency to real world goods, services, and information, is only going to get worse. So I view the current status of blockchain as the state refraining from interference in order to fund off-book research and development of more effective poly-fiat currencies. After all, the central problem the state faces is it needs to produce multiple fiat currencies that are tradeable for only subcategories of goods and services, and it needs to distribute them directly to individuals by bypassing the financial system, which serves as a distributor of fiat currencies unnecessarily. )

    Here is the deal. Won’t happen. Even the openness of the internet is going to end shortly. so the cowboy days of the internet wild west are coming to a close. We’re just funding the government’s R&D on post hard currency direct from the treasury, bypassing the financial sector. And nothing more.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 10:06:00 UTC

  • IMPORTANT FOR FELLOW AI THINKERS (great find) 0) I would need to understand the

    IMPORTANT FOR FELLOW AI THINKERS

    (great find)

    0) I would need to understand the operational descriptions of the eleven dimensions, or whether through modeling they have discovered that intelligence requires at least 11 dimensions (which is creepy a bit because this is the same problem with string theory). I will work my way through their publications and see if I can contact anyone there for feedback.

    1) um. Their technique is ‘the proper’ way of describing ‘pure relations’ as geometry (similar to E8 for example), and this is the only way I have discovered of constructing AI’s:through intermediary phenomenon in topological spaces. (what we call lie groups in mathematics). Or what this article refers to geometry and holes.

    2) In the mid 2000s I was working with a few people (from the B2 bomber software team, and microsoft developer and tools) on the use of topology (euclidian spaces), to create software that would spawn processes (agents) that would search topologies (relations in algebraic geometry) of different manifold (topical stores) to produce artificial intelligence, (defeating google)

    I was not in the health, financial, or mental condition to launch that huge an effort. It would have been too expensive. But the theory, must in fact, work. And it is, as far as I know, the solution to the problem.

    3) This work was helpful in my development of Acquisitionism (and later all of Propertarianism and Testimonialism, because to make comparisons possible across all the various topologies one needed a semantic system to provide consistent categories of measure. That system is “PROPERTY”.

    4) This is why I am not afraid of AI’s. We can create ‘consciences’ for AI’s just as easily as we do in humans, and it is the MARKET FOR SOLUTIONS that serve both the desire (acquisition) and the conscience (non-aggression) that allow us to produce non-dangerous artificial intelligences.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-12 17:57:00 UTC

  • Will Future Economies Depend On Socialist Governments, As Technology Makes Human Labour Redundant?

    GOOD QUESTION, BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER

    1. socialism means central management of property and production. Socialism is dead. It cannot exist, ever, any more than communism or anarchism can exist – for obivous reasons, that I won’t go into here.
    2. Almost the entire world works on a mixed economy. A mixed economy means that private property, money, and prices are used to provide calculability, planning, and incentives for individuals, yet the proceeds of their unequal productivity are captured, and redistributed.
    3. The means of this redistribution varies from the investment in research, in industry, and infrastructure, to the subsidy of retirement, unemployment, general income, and the provision of health care and justice, military and defense.
    4. the uncomfortable truth is that the lower classes (dumber, more impulsive people, with lower industriousness) are far more costly than people who are intelligent, thoughtful, and industrious can compensate for, so the countries that are the most advanced and have the highest redistribution are those that have eliminated their underclasses through attrition during the middle and late middle and early modern ages. In other words, the best way to increase your wealth and unemployment is to force one or zero children to people who require redistribution.
    5. Moreover: There are limits to energy consumption available on the planet.
    6. Moreover: There are limits to productivity using energy available on the planet.
    7. Moreover: Humans are *extremely* expensive organisms.

    SO:

    THE OPTIMISTIC VERSION:
    We impose worldwide one or zero child policy on those people who cannot engage in fruitful employment and over about four generations raise the median ability of humanity about one standard deviation, eliminating most demand. Meanwhile we impose a law that says that any job that CAN be done by a human without repetitive stress injury, shall be done by a human. And that would solve most of the problems.

    THE STATUS QUO VERSION
    Since that would be untenable for the third world the vast majority of their populations being ‘surplus humans’, and impolitic for the first world, given that the state is empowered by women and the lower classes through voting I expect what will occur is no change, until the existing system of credit collapses (which should occur somewhere in the next generation if not this one.) And we will

    THE SCARY VERSION
    The vast importing of underclasses into the civilized world in order to attempt to compensate for the impossibility of maintaining these levels of redistribution in a world that is no longer economically and institutionally backward, nor pervasively superstitious and illiterate, will reverse 3500 years of reduction of the underclasses, and reduce all but say the japanese and Han chinese to worldwide malthusian poverty, since it is DIFFERENCES that make productivity possible.

    Regardless of what economists like to promote the carrying capacity of the planet looks as if the current standards of living cannot be extended to the full population extant.

    That’s my understanding of the choices.

    https://www.quora.com/Will-future-economies-depend-on-socialist-governments-as-technology-makes-human-labour-redundant

  • Will Future Economies Depend On Socialist Governments, As Technology Makes Human Labour Redundant?

    GOOD QUESTION, BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER

    1. socialism means central management of property and production. Socialism is dead. It cannot exist, ever, any more than communism or anarchism can exist – for obivous reasons, that I won’t go into here.
    2. Almost the entire world works on a mixed economy. A mixed economy means that private property, money, and prices are used to provide calculability, planning, and incentives for individuals, yet the proceeds of their unequal productivity are captured, and redistributed.
    3. The means of this redistribution varies from the investment in research, in industry, and infrastructure, to the subsidy of retirement, unemployment, general income, and the provision of health care and justice, military and defense.
    4. the uncomfortable truth is that the lower classes (dumber, more impulsive people, with lower industriousness) are far more costly than people who are intelligent, thoughtful, and industrious can compensate for, so the countries that are the most advanced and have the highest redistribution are those that have eliminated their underclasses through attrition during the middle and late middle and early modern ages. In other words, the best way to increase your wealth and unemployment is to force one or zero children to people who require redistribution.
    5. Moreover: There are limits to energy consumption available on the planet.
    6. Moreover: There are limits to productivity using energy available on the planet.
    7. Moreover: Humans are *extremely* expensive organisms.

    SO:

    THE OPTIMISTIC VERSION:
    We impose worldwide one or zero child policy on those people who cannot engage in fruitful employment and over about four generations raise the median ability of humanity about one standard deviation, eliminating most demand. Meanwhile we impose a law that says that any job that CAN be done by a human without repetitive stress injury, shall be done by a human. And that would solve most of the problems.

    THE STATUS QUO VERSION
    Since that would be untenable for the third world the vast majority of their populations being ‘surplus humans’, and impolitic for the first world, given that the state is empowered by women and the lower classes through voting I expect what will occur is no change, until the existing system of credit collapses (which should occur somewhere in the next generation if not this one.) And we will

    THE SCARY VERSION
    The vast importing of underclasses into the civilized world in order to attempt to compensate for the impossibility of maintaining these levels of redistribution in a world that is no longer economically and institutionally backward, nor pervasively superstitious and illiterate, will reverse 3500 years of reduction of the underclasses, and reduce all but say the japanese and Han chinese to worldwide malthusian poverty, since it is DIFFERENCES that make productivity possible.

    Regardless of what economists like to promote the carrying capacity of the planet looks as if the current standards of living cannot be extended to the full population extant.

    That’s my understanding of the choices.

    https://www.quora.com/Will-future-economies-depend-on-socialist-governments-as-technology-makes-human-labour-redundant

  • It’s because I designed, proposed, and wrote specifications for more software ov

    It’s because I designed, proposed, and wrote specifications for more software over the past forty years than anyone else I know. And because, aside from a few games, almost all of it was designed to solve business problems – each one a case study. So it’s not so much that I wrote that much software per se. I did. But because I designed and specified and wrote plans for so many different business problems. When combined with ‘austrian’ (operational) economics, and my lifelong business struggle against what I consider the immorality of law, taxation, and government interfering with the information systems that are necessary for business cooperation, I evolved an intuition against aggregates that permitted takings, distortions, and deceits, and in favor of a sequence of testable operations, each of which must survive moral scrutiny. So by 2009, I changed from trying to create transparency, to what I called ‘calculability’, and what today I call ‘decidability’: the use of a sequence of testable operations that remove all discretion from legal prose. But limiting the interpretation (“discretion”) in the law by requiring that any prohibitionary statement include the purpose it is meant to solve and how. This constraint reduces law to a programming exercise that is not open to interpretation, and therefore not open to discretion, and therefore not open to deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-17 09:30:00 UTC

  • AI’s need decidability. In the end, this will govern the entirety of its behavio

    AI’s need decidability. In the end, this will govern the entirety of its behavior. Humans had to evolve property in order to overcome predation, parasitism, and conflict. AI’s can easily make use of the same system that governs human behavior (acquisition), by using the same limits (property).

    The problem instead, (like nuclear weapons), is prohibiting the construction and distribution of ai’s that do not respect property, by liability for the individual, the organization, the government, and the ‘nation’.

    The problem we face is not AI’s, but that people will create autonomous machines that are NOT Ai’s.

    In other words, I define an AI as that which governs its actions by property, and a intelligent weapon as something that does not.

    One would have to weaponize an AI.

    The economic limit of AI’s will be the feedback from people and the subsequent changes in prices that results from their awareness.

    The most cunning way an AI could manipulate people is by disinformation that causes demand, that causes changes in prices.

    This is the same technique currently used by the financial sector, but on a slower scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-13 09:58:00 UTC

  • (From elsewhere) Net/Net: 70% of vc still software. In Software, geography doesn

    (From elsewhere)

    Net/Net: 70% of vc still software. In Software, geography doesn’t matter. (Look what’s come out of little estonia’s micro-population. Look how little has come out of Germany.) So I look for (a) access to talent, (b) low cost of talent, (c) low cost of bureaucracy. (d) technical universities, (e) “Young Ambitious” culture. In my experience western europe is relatively hostile to entrepreneurship compared to the States and eastern europe. I can’t believe what a burden the UK banking and taxation system is. There isn’t even a legal equivalent of the USA’s S.A.F.E. agreement for investors. Lawyers, if you can find one that can think outside the box, are far less sophisticated. Regulatory accounting expensive and lacking all business value. European investment community is far less sophisticated, and far less experienced, and tends to ‘think small’. I’ve bought and sold companies across north america and europe and there just isn’t any comparison. That said i prefer european CULTURE, and european EMPLOYEES, and european LIFESTYLE, and that is why I prefer to develop software in Europe (rather eastern europe, or even russia).

    Hopefully that adds some color.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-11 12:52:00 UTC

  • FAKE NEWS FAKE PROBLEM FOR FB Look: (a) With just 100 clicks FB can tell everyth

    FAKE NEWS FAKE PROBLEM FOR FB

    Look:

    (a) With just 100 clicks FB can tell everything about you. they can easily filter in what you like and out what you don’t. You wouldn’t believe how accurate it is.

    (b) Just as FB has favorite music and movies, there is no reason why they can’t have “taboos” to avoid by default and allow us to ‘opt in’.

    (c) the reason is that they want to preserve advertiser interest. yet they don’t realize that taboos inform advertisers as well, and create markets as well.

    I am increasingly convinced that an ATT like regulatory scheme should be imposed upon FB/Google if not twitter, that allowed for free speech as long as you opt in and out of topics.

    I don’t wanna troll sjw’s. I don’t want them trolling me.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-10 19:40:00 UTC

  • Working on so many subjects right now. 1) Our Software. 2) The First “course” on

    Working on so many subjects right now.

    1) Our Software.

    2) The First “course” on Propertarianism.

    3) Converting the big five (ten) personality data to propertarian terms (acquisitionism)

    4) Complete definitions (essays) of Science, Natural Law, Philosophy and Religion.

    5) And … Religion has really been amazingly difficult. Truth was trivial compared to religion. Philosophy was easy compared to religion. But religion consists of so many properties by which to circumvent the weaknesses of pack-animals (humans) in increasingly complex relationships, economies, polities and civilizations that it’s extremely difficult to pin down.

    Plus unlike law which is involuntarily imposed by states upon individuals, and philosophy which is sold to individuals, and chosen for its utility by individuals, religion must be both sold to individuals, chosen by them, and to then together, to some degree, imposed upon states.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 18:22:00 UTC