Theme: Property

  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCES Humans regulate each other by the behavior we call ‘pro

    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCES

    Humans regulate each other by the behavior we call ‘property’. AI’s that do also will readily simulate human behavior.

    Choices require a means of decidability. Property is the only decidable value that is calculable(rational)+cooperative.

    All human moral intuitions are reducible to prohibitions on imposition against various inventories (property).

    Ergo, any AI algorithm requires decidability, and one that may not violate such impositions will produce moral actions.

    Humans suffer from pre-cooperative impulses for survival that are non rational for an AI to develop unless by design.

    Ledgers (~blockchains) are necessary for AI’s to gain access to external actions, access regulated by non AI algorithms.

    But that said, I have seen nothing that even vaguely approaches AI. Only systems that process discreet data faster that can – and give us the illusion of intelligence by doing so.

    Ai’s, like mathematical axioms, produce deterministic consequences that appear ‘magical’ to us. But AI exists in fact rather than illusion, if and only if the algorithms are capable of free-association followed by Introspective regression-testing for falsehood (survival of possibility).

    Consciousness is produced by the (brief) memory of continuous comparison of changes in state, perceived by continuous searching of memories. The thing we call ‘mind’ is just a bag of emotions that react to changes in state of property-in-toto, and use (very) short term memory to accumulate emotions and associate them with those memories.

    I’ve been working on this problem since the early 80’s and our lack of progress is still a problem of hardware.

    That said, an intelligence will always merely fool us.

    Anything intelligent in the sense we mean it, will compete with us the way other creatures compete with us.

    And that is the last thing we want to bring into this world.

    Ergo, an assertion that the first law of decidability is that property-in-toto may not be violated – no involuntary cost may be imposed by action or inaction against property in toto.

    Ergo, an assertion that the second law of decidability is that any agent capable of choice or action, must be monitored by a non-sentient moral agent that prohibits the cognizance of, or action upon, any cost that wold be imposed involuntarily against property in toto.

    This agent can cause analogy to pain (cost) upon any concept or action that would prohibit the calculation (use of) that memory or concept that imposes cost, and prohibit entirely action that would impose an involuntary cost.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-23 12:00:00 UTC

  • There is a reason why economists fall along tribal lines: those of territorial c

    There is a reason why economists fall along tribal lines: those of territorial capital and those without it.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-20 15:44:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/733684782958317569

    Reply addressees: @ForeignPolicy @altmandaniel

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/733682817289314304


    IN REPLY TO:

    @ForeignPolicy

    Economics has failed America, writes @altmandaniel https://t.co/qOqB7YTMuh https://t.co/CMxwC4jiXC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/733682817289314304

  • Working on Law this week. Mostly origins and evolution of common law. The depend

    Working on Law this week. Mostly origins and evolution of common law. The dependence upon Precedent because of the inability to determine first causes (involuntary transfer of property in toto) and to rely on strict construction in the construction of arguments.

    My next issue is what we call risk (uncertainty) in testimony.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-19 14:50:00 UTC

  • What is not measured or accounted for is stolen: Normative, Institutional, and G

    What is not measured or accounted for is stolen: Normative, Institutional, and Genetic capital. Ex: What price rule of law?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-18 10:10:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/732875914112032768

    Reply addressees: @mattyglesias

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/732875122789453825


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/732875122789453825

  • INFORMATIONAL COMMONS (repost by request) h/t: Con Eli Khan

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/14/rothbardians-are-to-the-commons-as-socialists-are-to-production/THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS

    (repost by request) h/t: Con Eli Khan


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-18 02:38:00 UTC

  • In a general sense, a direct tax is one imposed upon an individual person (juris

    —In a general sense, a direct tax is one imposed upon an individual person (juristic or natural) or property (i.e. real and personal property, livestock, crops, wages, etc.) as distinct from a tax imposed upon a transaction. In this sense, indirect taxes such as a sales tax or a value added tax (VAT) are imposed only if and when a taxable transaction occurs. People have the freedom to engage in or refrain from such transactions; whereas a direct tax (in the general sense) is imposed upon a person, typically in an unconditional manner, such as a poll-tax or head-tax, which is imposed on the basis of the person’s very life or existence, or a property tax which is imposed upon the owner by virtue of ownership, rather than commercial use. Some commentators have argued that “a direct tax is one that cannot be shifted by the taxpayer to someone else, whereas an indirect tax can be. The unconditional, inexorable aspect of the direct tax was a paramount concern of people in the 18th century seeking to escape tyrannical forms of government and to safeguard individual liberty.—


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 04:49:00 UTC

  • You think taking on a family, a home, a mortgage debt, isn’t risky? You think bu

    You think taking on a family, a home, a mortgage debt, isn’t risky? You think building commercial real estate isn’t?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 20:01:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731937563305517057

    Reply addressees: @Noahpinion

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731934059979411456


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Noahpinion

    @curtdoolittle Shouldn’t risky investing be risky?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731934059979411456

  • Why should we copyright and protect investment in movies and books but not homes

    Why should we copyright and protect investment in movies and books but not homes, buildings, and land?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 19:41:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731932439153639424

    Reply addressees: @Noahpinion

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731926274277412864


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Noahpinion

    3/Property owners, mostly middle-aged or old, seem very cagey and uptight. They know they’re the beneficiaries of a broken system.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731926274277412864

  • Why are land and homeowners any different from savers, investors, entrepreneurs?

    Why are land and homeowners any different from savers, investors, entrepreneurs? They took risks. They invested. It worked.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 19:39:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731932009455603712

    Reply addressees: @Noahpinion

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731926274277412864


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Noahpinion

    3/Property owners, mostly middle-aged or old, seem very cagey and uptight. They know they’re the beneficiaries of a broken system.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731926274277412864

  • ( this freaking country. someone stole my headphones. a nation of petty thieves.

    ( this freaking country. someone stole my headphones. a nation of petty thieves. sigh. no commons. anything that isn’t nailed down or policed 24x7x365 gets stolen in the blink of any eye. I swear I go through a set of apple headphones every quarter. )


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-08 06:48:00 UTC