Theme: Responsibility

  • Ethical Ai? Yes Its Solvable and Trivially so

    1) Ethical AI is a trivially solvable problem in (a) hardware (b) software design (c) requirement of insurance, and (d) extremely harsh punishment of violations of that law, applied to every person in the chain of decidability. (d) international treaty. 2) We have solved this problem for thousands of years among humans with one single rule. All civilizations and all law is based upon that one rule. That politicians, philosophers and theologians ‘skirt’ that rule does not mean we cannot apply it to software. 3) There is nothing ethical or moral about war. That war exists defines the limit of ethics and morality. There will be killing machines just as there are machine guns and nuclear weapons, and the first people to invent them will dominate war, politics, economics, for a century. 4) The military incentive always DEFINES the political order. Not the other way around. You cannot stop this technology. This tech means greatest manufacturing capacity and engineering capacity will dominate all future wars – and therefore politics and therefore economics. 5) However, it is entirely possible to protect citizens from criminal uses the same way we do from nuclear weapons. However, the cost of AI will be in the billions today and dependent on vast infrastructure. But this price will decrease while the cost of refining n-weapons won’t.
  • ETHICAL AI? YES ITS SOLVABLE AND TRIVIALLY SO 1) Ethical AI is a trivially solva

    ETHICAL AI? YES ITS SOLVABLE AND TRIVIALLY SO

    1) Ethical AI is a trivially solvable problem in (a) hardware (b) software design (c) requirement of insurance, and (d) extremely harsh punishment of violations of that law, applied to every person in the chain of decidability. (d) international treaty.

    2) We have solved this problem for thousands of years among humans with one single rule. All civilizations and all law is based upon that one rule. That politicians, philosophers and theologians ‘skirt’ that rule does not mean we cannot apply it to software.

    3) There is nothing ethical or moral about war. That war exists defines the limit of ethics and morality. There will be killing machines just as there are machine guns and nuclear weapons, and the first people to invent them will dominate war, politics, economics, for a century.

    4) The military incentive always DEFINES the political order. Not the other way around. You cannot stop this technology. This tech means greatest manufacturing capacity and engineering capacity will dominate all future wars – and therefore politics and therefore economics.

    5) However, it is entirely possible to protect citizens from criminal uses the same way we do from nuclear weapons. However, the cost of AI will be in the billions today and dependent on vast infrastructure. But this price will decrease while the cost of refining n-weapons won’t.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 09:43:00 UTC

  • 2) We have solved this problem for thousands of years among humans with one sing

    2) We have solved this problem for thousands of years among humans with one single rule. All civilizations and all law is based upon that one rule. That politicians, philosophers and theologians ‘skirt’ that rule does not mean we cannot apply it to software.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 17:13:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004410944024391680

    Reply addressees: @mer__edith @Cambridge_Uni

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004339248089231360


    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/1004339248089231360

  • 1) Ethical AI is a trivially solvable problem in (a) hardware (b) software desig

    1) Ethical AI is a trivially solvable problem in (a) hardware (b) software design (c) requirement of insurance, and (d) extremely harsh punishment of violations of that law, applied to every person in the chain of decidability. (d) international treaty.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 17:11:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004410580399263744

    Reply addressees: @mer__edith @adambanksdotcom @Cambridge_Uni

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004339248089231360


    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/1004339248089231360

  • (no, I don’t think of myself as a good person. In my mind a good person is kind,

    (no, I don’t think of myself as a good person. In my mind a good person is kind, humble, honest, hard working, raises a family and respects or maintains the commons – an ordinary person. The people I envy are ordinary men with ordinary family lives. Because I understand the value of such things even if I am … not on such an ordinary path myself. )

    Actually, I don’t think of myself as a good person. Not at all. Probably I just don’t want to be a worse person than I already am. But I screw up like everyone else does. That said, I manage to do some good stuff along the way.

    If you are extremely competitive and risk, work, and stress tolerant, you are going to take more risks, and produce more failures than other people do.

    If you choose a goal that all other choices are subservient to, you put yourself on a path that is uncompromising, and that will eventually effect others who don’t have such goals.

    The moment you survive one or more serious illnesses, you become very intolerant of anything that interferes with that goal, and very intolerant of anything that adds work, risk, or stress.

    Almost everything I ‘feel bad’ for, is a consequence of (a) taking on too much risk, work, or stress than I am capable of enduring or, (b) putting my work above all other considerations, and (c) exacerbating that narrowness due to multiple serious illnesses. For these reasons I do not treat other than a very small number of relationships as worthy of much compromise. And so this is a natural conflict one must live with to pursue certain categories of goals.

    It’s not that I don’t understand it. It’s that I struggle extremely hard to stop myself. And I almost always fail.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-04 13:37:00 UTC

  • Bill Joslin A model for this could be described as concentric rings of influence

    Bill Joslin

    A model for this could be described as concentric rings of influence, centering on the individual and radiating out into the commons based on which domain one acts as judge-of-last-resort.

    Am I judge-of-last-resort for my mind (clarity of intention)

    Am I judge-of-last-resort for my body (voluntary intentional action)

    Am I judge-of-last-resort for my household (do I direct my domestic life)

    Am I judge-of-last-resort for my livelihood (do I direct my means of survival)

    Am I judge-of-last-resort which secures (ensures) my property-en-toto

    Am I judge-of-last-resort in the intergenerational shared commons (do I direct my place in history)

    For each of those questions, if there is another person to which you are beholden then the answer is no.

    Everyman a king of his household

    Everyman a rifleman

    Everyman a sheriff

    Everyman a judge

    ….in opportunity only, secured by demonstrations of ability.

    Cult of non-submission – cultivation of autonomy


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-04 11:41:00 UTC

  • THE SCOPE OF “PROPERTARIANISM” (NATURAL LAW) Metaphysics:…………….Vitruvianism: Man

    THE SCOPE OF “PROPERTARIANISM” (NATURAL LAW)

    Metaphysics:…………….Vitruvianism: Man is the measure of all things man (cog. sci.)

    Psychology: ……………..Acquisitionism: Man acquires and defends.

    Sociology: ………………..Compatibilism: Intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy wherein we combine information and calculate compatible means to the achievement of different ends through voluntary conflict, competition, cooperation, and boycott.

    Ethics and Morality:..Propertarianism. (Reciprocity) The Ethics of Non Imposition, production, and investment.

    Epistemology: …………Testimonialism. The competition between imaginary associations and existential measurements in all dimensions of actionable reality.

    The Sciences: ……….. (reformations of each)

    Law: …………………………Algorithmic Natural Law. The Natural Law of Reciprocity. Strictly constructed from the test of reciprocity.

    Politics: ……………………Markets in Everything. (Which I call “Market Fascism” with tongue in cheek.)

    Group Strategy:………………….. Agency: Maximization of agency through Transcendence, Sovereignty, and Heroism

    Spirituality:………………Transcendence: Masculine Stoicism, Feminine Epicureanism, Ritual Familialism, Feast Naturalism,…….Festival Nationalism.

    Aesthetics:……………….,Truth(Testimonial), Excellence(Density), Goodness(Morality[‘the commons’]) and Beauty(Bounty).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-02 09:03:00 UTC

  • 4) What can I warranty ethics (Militia Ethics), vs what can I make excuses for (

    4) What can I warranty ethics (Militia Ethics), vs what can I make excuses for (Ghetto ethics).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 18:22:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002616325825552386

    Reply addressees: @Meaningness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993602725316186112


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Meaningness

    Definition of “rationalism” from the Eggplant book draft.

    If you identify as a rationalist, I’m curious whether you find this accurate, and if not, why not? https://t.co/2cvo7478fj

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993602725316186112

  • “forge brotherhood not equality.”—Neil A. Bucklew —“Pull your weight and you

    —“forge brotherhood not equality.”—Neil A. Bucklew

    —“Pull your weight and your Brothers will compensate for your shortcomings as you do for them. If you can’t they impose limits to keep you safe”—Bill Joslin


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-31 23:34:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002332534666158080

  • —“Curt: How should the (ideal) relationship between homosexuals and society exist or be constructed?”—

    —“Curt: How should the (ideal) relationship between homosexuals and society exist or be constructed, to make homosexuals experience of society be the best it can be, while also making society’s experience of homosexuals be the best it can be? There are a lot of mixed messages out there… and you actually make sense and can justify why you make sense. I would appreciate your comment.”— Ok, Here is a rough outline of the argument in natural law: WHEREAS 1) As far as I know homosexuality is a non-rare in utero developmental disorder. I suspect this current scientific hypothesis to survive – although we might discover the cause is or is not an immune system reaction to testosterone (which it appears to be), and we may discover that it can be limited by natal treatments in the future – it does run in families. 2) If you read enough of my work, you’ll encounter the hypothesis that humans are not only able to adapt intellectually and emotionally to changes but that we can create very different distributions of traits in populations using very small variations in endocrine expression. We can express these by stresses and by selection. The male-vs female physical, and male-vs-female reward systems, and male vs female brain structures included in those distributions. 3) It is unclear whether or not the ability to produce homosexuals of either gender is a necessary consequence of our ability to produce those distributions. And secondly, whether or not the result is harmful or not. (apparently not). the reason being that there is *greater value in productivity in service of reproduction than reproduction*. 4) It is unclear how much of homosexuality is produced in utero, in early development, and in late development. My understanding at present, is that many sexual identity disorders can occur during development without sufficient physical exercise, and sufficient role play by either gender. (And that is before we account for the hormones in the modern chemical environment.) AND WHEREAS That we incrementally demonstrate our fitness (non parasitism, and productive contribution) by: 1) Forgoing crimes both private and public. 2) Demonstrate payment for the franchise by continuous military/militial/sheriff service. 3) Demonstrating worthiness by self sufficiency by productive contribution, thereby forgoing free riding and parasitism 4) Demonstrate worthiness to the intergenerational polity by marriage and family and the support thereof. 5) Demonstrate worthiness to productivity by the voluntary organization of business and industry. 7) Demonstrate worthiness to the polity by organization of the finance, industry, business, trade, and labor in a territory. 8) Demonstrate worthiness by the correct adjudication of disputes between in and out group members under the natural law of reciprocity. AND WHEREAS 1) That the family is the first demonstration of organizational capacity upon which the intergenerational family is dependent. 2) That families are a costly but necessary contribution to the family, clan, tribe, nation, and polity. 3) That families must work tirelessly to insulate generations from consumptive and hedonistic interests and behaviors. 4) That individuals who do not serve, do not produce families, do not produce businesses or industries, do not manage territories, or do not adjudicate differences under the natural law of property, are at best not harmful, and if engaged in criminal or free riding or parasitic activities are a a dead weight loss to the family, clan, tribe, nation, and polity. THEREFORE 1) Homosexuality is a birth defect, and not voluntary. Women are less sexually dedicated than males. Trauma in women especially can cause homosexuality at any point in life. 2) Anything that occurs between adults in private is a voluntary exchange between them and nothing else. 3) Anything that occurs in public (speech/sound, sight/display, or behavior/action) imposes an involuntary cost upon others. 4) Any speech, display, or action that is contrary to the preservation of the intergenerational investment in the commons, and in particular conspicuous hedonism or conspicuous consumption is damaging to the informational commons, and damaging to those who pay higher costs within it. 5) Marriage is a contract for corporation between a man, a woman, and the polity, for the intergeneration production of offspring, and reciprocal care, and reciprocal insurance. However, this contract consists almost entirely of (a)a transfer of all personal property to community property, (c) a reciprocal grant of power of attorney. (d) reciprocal ownership of offspring until the age of maturity. (e) an implied but unenforced insurance against hardship, infirmity, and old age. This corporation dramatically reduces the cost of household production and maintenance. Without this relationship household costs rise distproportionately and therefore standards of living drop accordingly. (as we have seen) 6) Natural Reproduction and parenting by individual homosexuals by whatever means, and by pairs of homosexuals by whatever means, is difficult to argue with, however any suggestion or influence by such parents that their children’s gender is flexible, that male and female minds and bodies are not different, and that male and female roles in family and society are not necessary, must be prosecuted as a developmental crime on the scale of any other child abuse or torture. 7) Public displays of affection in furtherance of paying the high cost of reproductive persistence, training an intergenerational family, and ensuring that families can produce intra and intergenerational insurance of one another rewards those that so contribute. 8) Public displays of non-reproductive affection shall be limited to those that are demonstrated between heterosexual members of the same sex. 9) Under no condition shall heterosexual and homosexual males be forced into one another’s company. Homosexual males are unfit for military participation by virtue of a birth defect that may hinder trust. 10) Prosecution of homosexual hedonism in any public form shall be vigorous such that it is entirely suppressed. (ie: no more of this public bathroom nonsense and drug use.) CLOSING In other words, the low temporal investment of homosexuals must be removed from visibility in the commons so that there is every incentives for the high intertemporal investment in families. The direction of homosexual relations to the construction of families despite the extraordinary fragility of such families due to the fragility of homosexual relationships, and suppression of public hedonism has proven a successfully means of both reducing public hostility to homosexual behavior and increased the positive signaling behavior of homosexuals. SPECIAL TREATMENT the only special treatment we must give to any behavior in society is that which perpetuates investment in the high cost of producing high investment families. The age of individualism has been a catastrophe for the very reason it was intended to be: to destroy the influence of intergenerational middle and upper middle class families. Just as the ancient attack on the aristocracy was an attack on intergenerational aristocracy. (The Ten Planks were available for all to see.) —MORE— NATURAL LAW ON GENDER https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/06/02/natural-law-on-gender/ TWO GENDERS, MANY DISORDERS https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/09/14/two-genders-many-disorders/ GAY MARRIAGE https://propertarianinstitute.com/2013/05/31/why-are-gay-people-asking-for-the-right-to-marry-if-it-is-legal-stuff-they-are-asking-for-cant-they-go-to-some-separate-setup-for-partners/
    May 30, 2018 12:47pm