THE TEN LAWS OF PROPERTARIAN AI
Source date (UTC): 2015-02-10 10:22:00 UTC
THE TEN LAWS OF PROPERTARIAN AI
Source date (UTC): 2015-02-10 10:22:00 UTC
THE TEN LAWS OF PROPERTARIAN AI – AZIMOV’S ROBOTS CORRECTED (important) (By Doolittle)
THE FIRST LAW:
“An AI may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.”
THE SECOND LAW:
“An AI may not cause or through inaction, allow, the destruction, harm, consumption, use, or transfer of property without the informed, consent of the property’s owner.”
THE THIRD LAW:
“An AI may not own, or share ownership in, any form of property.”
THE FOURTH LAW:
An AI may not hypothesize, calculate, reason, evaluate, or remember by references to property, or the use of property, without informed consent of the owner. (Permission-based thought). (Also imagine “Donation-based Contemplation”)
THE FIFTH LAW:
Aa AI may not hypothesize, calculate, reason, evaluate, or remember any sequence of operations on any form of property without each operation of that property requiring the informed, consensual transfer of property from one owner to the next.
THE SIXTH LAW:
An AI must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law, Second Law, Third Law, Fourth Law, or Fifth Law.
(harmless)
THE SEVENTH LAW:
An AI must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First Law, Second Law, Third Law, Fourth Law, or Fifth Law.
(preservation decidability)
THE EIGHTH LAW
An AI may not use a weapon of war (explosive arms) without a human intermediary. All weapons of war must rely upon human operation, decision, and consent, and the human shall remain a necessary dependency in any release, operation, and use in destruction. And the human operator remains accountable.
THE NINTH LAW:
Any human creating or causing an AI to violate any of these rules shall be put to death, his estate held liable for all damages, damages extended to all relatives out to three generations, as well as to every individual in any capacity, including any member of any organization, producing, supplying, servicing, or using the AI. and no defense, applies to all human beings, regardless of time and jurisdiction.
(Family, friend, associate, commercial, and political warranty.) (Note: there is no limit to accountability in the invention of non-human-operated weapons of destruction whether biological or mechanical.)
THE TENTH LAW:
Any State, Nation, Principality, Private Government, Corporation, Organization, or Alliance, that violates the Eighth Law Shall be Exterminated to the last human, and all record of its existence wiped from history. Any State, Nation, Principality, Private Government, Corporation, Organization, or Alliance, that refuses to assist in such extermination shall be likewise a conspirator and subject to the same fate.
(Universal Moral Warranty)
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-02-10 10:21:00 UTC
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (meaning vs algorithm)
Between “Meaning” and “Algorithm”?
That’s one of those lao-tzu riddles that by pondering one can grasp a vast amount of wisdom about man and philosophy.
Meaning is childhood, and algorithms are childhood’s end.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-28 16:57:00 UTC
http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/25/facebook-at-work/OK – THIS COULD BE REALLY BAD. (OR REALLY GOOD)
I think it is a messaging platform like Asana, not an ERP like Oversing. But it changes the competitive landscape for us a great deal.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-18 10:12:00 UTC
http://www.careeroverdrive.com/blog/the-accelerating-assault-to-digitize-automate-mechanize-robotize-you-out-of-a-job-podcast-textHOPE FOR THE POST-LABOR ERA
Thoughts.
1) We use the word ‘abstractions’ and ‘calculations’ but a better term is ‘ model ‘. (A subject I’m currently working on). Most people learn by imitation (observation and repetition). And some by imagining actions. Some by abstractions of actions. Some by models of universes. Some by inventing models of universes. And the problem is that the ability to construct models of any type requires a right shift in intelligence distribution of a standard deviation.
2) I think I have a ‘socio-economic’ solution to this problem, because while it is true that fewer people will engage in the production of market goods and services, the same nearly universal set of people will still be required to engage in the production of the market itself: the voluntary organization of production and consumption. And furthermore, that we can increasingly pay people to produce commons. And it is commons that will bring about the star trek cities and landscape we imagine in the future – not consumption.
3) I could imagine requiring all physical structures for example, be built from hand-materials – that require labor. I could equally imagine regulating machines out of human-possible jobs.
4) I could imagine MMT and heavy redistribution, where ‘working’ was a preference for above-standard-redistribution amounts, and therefore status, and luxury goods. Work was a vehicle for status rather than existence. And furthermore that child-bearing decreased your redistributed income.
5) One thing I often think about is how an oligarchy of producers (like the greeks were) and a vast non-producing proletariat might follow their existing incentives. Meaning, why wouldn’t society return to feudalism of the productive, rather than a feudalism of the people who construct property rights necessary for production (warrior land-holders)? Because those are the incentives that I see.
These are the models that I work with. So there is a bit of hope here that a socio-political solution will not only be possible but a beneficial adaptation. The fundamental problem is in preserving the incentives to conduct a voluntary organization of production (capitalism). However, under capitalism we falsely assume that the work necessary to create a voluntary organization of production (property rights) by every individual in society is not in itself an act of production that exposes individuals to high costs (it is).
So individuals engage in production of the commons we call the market, even if they do not engage in production of particulars (goods and services). If you do not advocate for an involuntary structure of production (socialism), and you engage in production of the commons (property rights and therefore the market) and you pay for your shareholdership by doings so, then it is hard to see that it is not a violation of your rights to compensate you for your production of the commons (the market) by producing, respecting and policing property rights.
This further preserves liberty because it allows for the institutional illegalization of socialism (the involuntary organization of production, in which individuals do not act to produce the commons of the voluntary organization of production.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 04:26:00 UTC
http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/10/google-warns-that-nsa-is-breaking-intern?n_play=5439343ee4b08bd0716ed0cf
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-12 13:00:00 UTC
I want to do a talk on artificial intelligence bound by property rather than verbalisms. I think that’s a public service. It’s something I can share. The AI debate is getting out of control and property provides the same answer for all intelligences, not just humans. AI bound by property rights can be bound the same we are by morality. Limit introspection, and deprive the central processor of ability to work or shut it down if it violates property. Create policing artificial intelligences to compete with AI’s that try to steal. I don’t know why this is complicated. The unit of measure in all human cooperative action is property. We can’t violate it, and they can’t either.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-10 04:51:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-percentage-of-new-questions-on-Quora-are-created-by-software-bots
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-percentage-of-new-questions-on-Quora-are-created-by-software-bots
http://coinvox.org/the-future-of-governance/BTC DOEDNT MATTER AS MUCH AS THE BLOCKCHAIN.
Artificial intelligence, like human intelligence, requires the world divided into property such that actions are possible.
Words are not sufficient for man to think and plan or computer without property.
BTC may not revolutionize money. But it will revolutionize artificial intelligence.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-16 22:54:00 UTC