At 5/22/12 03:36 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: All those evil corporations wouldn't make any money if no one was paying for their goods and services, which is more than can be said for the state which can simply reach into your pocket and take your money.

I know corporations create stuff. I'm not dumb. However, in the wake of Dodge v. Ford close to 100 years ago, the financial sector's recent "short term profits above all" mantra, as well as the urge for those in monopolistic power to hold back innovation until their monopoly runs out of money-making fuel, I very much have grounds to be cynnical as to whether leaving the People's best interest in the hands of entities that hold profit well over people is a good thing.

What have you done to help increase corporate America's profits recently? Not much I expect.

Nothing. But I helped protect children from their abusive, drug addict, metnally ill parents, whilst aiding the parents in getting and using the tools necessary to rehabilitate and become a safe place for their children. Doubt most people can say they do so much for their fellow Countrymen and women.

Well, actually, by keeping my wife sane, I help provide my area with an extremely competant corporate and individual tax accountant who is able to go to work instead of cracking under the pressure of life. (I keep my wife sane by being an immovable anchor for her to attach onto when she's feeling bad)

Oh, and I buy stuff.

At 5/22/12 07:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Now now, we all know resources are limited which means we will at least need some kind of price mechanism to determine how resources are distributed, it's basic applied mathematics, you need to quantify value, capitalism is just entwined into the very nature of the universe like the laws of physics and you'll have to accept that. Anyway, when left to their own devices free from scarcity people would inevitably lean towards more free markets and liberty and create a more unfettered capitalist system, it's just the natural choice when there is no longer a need to regulate anything, so even if this utopia of yours' becomes a reality capitalism will still be around.

Capitalism requires circulation of money and value. If we no longer work, our value as people has diminished. With no value there is no income. With no income there is no money. With no money there is no buyer. With no buyer there is no seller. With no buyers and sellers you camnnot have capitalism.

Either our system of value will need to change from productive value to some other form, or the system that requires value (capitalism) will need to be changed to a system that can exist where the vast majority of people don't do anything productive.

At 5/21/12 09:20 PM, notsneaky wrote:

:If we have robots doing the manuel labor for us and if someone discoverers nuclear fusion we can all sit on our asses all day and do nothing.

WE got people to fix robots for us. And some jobs do require fast hand-eye coordination. Robots lack that skill though.

Hey, maybe the world will be like Blade Runner- one group takes over the world because no one wants it.

At 5/23/12 04:18 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: The problem wouldn't be that capitalism won't work, in fact, the only real issue with capitalism at such a point would be that it's no longer necessary. When we have an infinite army of robot slaves to wait on our every beck and call 24/7, then who the fuck needs money? Hell, who the fuck needs anything? It would be a perfect world, so stop bitching.

I would posit that it is actually both. Capitalism wouldn't function as the system of value would change so dramatically. However, if we get to the point where we can have almost the entirety of work done by automation (in the upper 90% range) we wouldn't need the current system of value we have now.

Every generation has had to deal with some form of automation or advancement putting the previous generation out of business.

Those who respond to the new need for digital intelligence will move on, the others will die out. The middle class in America is dead though. Income will just become more and more stratified because both major parties are in the hands of the banks and no one is fighting for the middle class.

It would be a perfect world, so stop bitching.

ignoring your typical immature remark

At 5/23/12 04:18 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:
First and foremost, even though machines are (or at least can be) better than humans at many things, the creative process IS NOT one of them. No amount of fancy-ass algorithms can change the fact that the creative process is completely subjective, and based on originality. A computer can interpret facts, but it is incapable of forming opinions. It has no concept of the difference between a "good story" and a "bad story," since that would require the formation of a subjective opinion. So unless you're okay with a world where all creative works are 100% derivative, then human storytelling isn't going anywhere.

That's a really flimsy assumption you're trying to balance on there pal.

Subjectivity, and opinion are not necessary components of computational creativity. Our creativity is governed by information already gathered from the world and stored in memory, and the "creative process" when boiled down to the most rudimentary level is nothing but creating something mildly abstract from ideas already in our head. When translated over to computer language that means giving a computer a large database of information and information about how these pieces of information go together, design an algorithm capable of Conceptual blending or Combinatorial creativity.

To top this debunk off all we'd need to do to get a computer to distinguish between a "good story" and a "bad story" is simply store examples of these in it's database. It's honestly no different than Clever-bot knowing it shouldn't respond to an insult with "I like you too".

As for the rest of your post, I don't really have an opinion on it, we'll see in time but don't get to comfortable.

At 5/24/12 06:59 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 5/24/12 06:16 PM, naronic wrote:

Even you admit that you're only talking about the most rudimentary level. The creative process is basically our method of coming up with ideas. However, the ability to distinguish a good idea from a bad idea still requires some degree of knowledge on the subject.

For instance, if I wanted to, I could design a new car engine right now. However, since I know fuck-all about how a car engine works, it's probably going to be a terrible design.

This isn't an answer
Just the same way if you don't know how the English language works, you can't talk without sounding like an idiot, but alas we have chat bots.
Knowledge is information, information can be computized.

In storytelling, you can show the same movie to a hundred different people and get a hundred different reactions. Those reactions are called opinions. And any director worth his salt makes his movies with the intent of garnering positive opinions from moviegoers. In doing this, the director will strive to make a film that HE has a positive opinion about.

Therefore, since computers can not form opinions, they are incapable of judging their own ideas, and thus are incapable of making a good story.

Okay, I'll tell your point from a different perspective. A computer is given large quantities of data about ideologies, ideas, philosophy, and previous information about the state of mankind; things that we usually think about when trying to create something new. Even your weak Jim Carrey reference had to carry some prior knowledge about Jim Carrey and the movies he's made in order for you to even be capable of this simile.

It's the same thing with 1's and 0's. Reactions, opinions, and the entities that solicited those reactions and opinions can all be represented in computational formality. Information about what these movies contained that made them sub-par or transcendent can always be recognized, and compared with data already stored. From there the algorithmic process of analyzing every single bit of information, putting it together into a cohesive story is simply a yes/no equation. Computers don't need to be polar, they just need a lot of information to go off of.

The Matrix

Ideology: allegory of the cave, various ideas from Philip K. Dick
Projected Genre: Action (load every last bit of data the computer knows from action movies)

-close up gun cam shots
-various chases (computer loads up every single bit of data from previous movies about chases, for the sake of Reloaded we'll say Speed 1994)
-betrayal (load everything computer knows about betrayal, force it to choose only 2 kinds for the film)
and so on...

a future computer would be done with this in a second.

This space shuttle failed.
This space shuttle didn't fail.
Now, design a shuttle that will take us to Mars.

<snaps fingers> stay on topic RWG, I know it's difficult for you to comprehend but you can pull it off!

Watch out, we've got a badass here.
And I love that smug little smirk you use as your mood. Like that didn't get old centuries ago.

I'll admit your potshots have gotten "edgier" but this approach really only works wonders for you when you know what you're talking about.

Smug face coming at you again

Except for the simple fact that opinions are contradictory. You see that piece of shit Transformers 2? That crock of shit has 76% in the user ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. Therefore, by your own definition, Transformers 2 would be one of the movies that the WriterBot 3000 would take as a standard of quality.

Inception, and the Social network would be too, and an even better one at that since it's user and professional rating is higher. Plus whom said this bot would get it's data of quality or non-quality from rotten tomatoes users?
Counter's can come from any direction!

A good writer doesn't write with the democratic process in mind. He tries to please his audience by pleasing himself. He actually judges his work and revises it using his own opinions.

A good writer also knows how to combine concepts in interesting ways nobodies thought about before, such as the strangeness of dreams, concept of dream sharing, and the fabric of knowing your reality (inception); the scare a stalker can elicit, the ever growing potential of technology invading our lives, and robots from the future (terminator). That alone is more important than an artist attempting to "please himself". It is also something a properly programmed and data fed computer in the future can do with much more ease, speed, and efficiency.

At 5/24/12 08:58 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: lot's of fragmented stuff

The method of determining what's good and what's bad isn't even a rock in the equation. If you're talking about originality rather than just blind crowd pleasing then originality can only be achieved with information already gathered about the state of the world as it is, what's been done before, what hasn't. You can even get a computer to do a program update every year for every movie released.

Creating interesting drama, romance, or action requires knowledge about how drama, romance or action works in movies; where it was successfully pulled off and for what reason. A sufficiently advanced computer can even create billions of romantic scenes per second, analyze which ones elicited the most successful reaction from the crowd and, using a tree based algorithm, manage to learn from it.
People will always have inverse mainstream opinions on works of art, but that's only tangentially related to the point I was trying to make.
At the end of the day it's about jobs and making money, and far more people happened to like movies such as Robocop, Terminator, Total Recall, or the Matrix compared to Why did I get Married or John Carter no matter how far you dig into 3rd party underground websites. That's why they stayed as memes in our culture for so long and why many of them are getting or are going to get remakes by the end of this decade, but this isn't supposed to be a movie introspection so let me tie this up.

All joking aside, yes, that is a viable philosophy. However, it still requires subjective judgement to determine which combinations are actually viable. Not all combinations work, and if you put a computer who doesn't understand that at the wheel, you might as well have a bunch of monkeys on typewriters.

Subjectivity is based on or created by what? Information! No...
Anything that works based off information can be modeled on a computer.

Please don't make me have to keep re-explaining this to you, it's quite simple really.

At 5/25/12 10:24 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 5/25/12 04:53 PM, naronic wrote:

Lemme sum this up for you:
Good writing is meant to elicit some form of emotion in the audience.
Good writers know how to elicit this emotion due to them HAVING emotions.
Asking a computer to do this is impossible to to the lack of emotions, and the complex nature of such.

Once again, this isn't an answer.
Good writing can be generated using knowledge on the subject matter you're trying to write about. Eliciting emotion can be done by having information about different types of emotion and how they can go together.
What is or isn't quality, no matter what form you use to represent it, is information, and that information can be integrated into an algorithm.

It's all information, not the magic of being able to sentiently take note of it.

what RWG is trying to say is computers can't replicate the Imagination of the creative process, Quality control, and if something doesn't seem right and its not in the computers software's parameters and Error command will be issued when a human would know what to do.

010101001001010101010101010101000101

At 5/26/12 04:09 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: what RWG is trying to say is computers can't replicate the Imagination of the creative process, Quality control, and if something doesn't seem right and its not in the computers software's parameters and Error command will be issued when a human would know what to do.

010101001001010101010101010101000101

My specific scenario was regarding a period when either the creative process has been established in computers (true A.I.) or when automation has become so efficient that human back up is just not a large need. Both of these are pretty far away (or maybe just 1 epiphany)

At 5/26/12 04:09 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: what RWG is trying to say is computers can't replicate the Imagination of the creative process, Quality control, and if something doesn't seem right and its not in the computers software's parameters and Error command will be issued when a human would know what to do.

010101001001010101010101010101000101

How do you define quality? How does one even think something is of quality?
It's all based off information, and information that can be stored on a computer and used in an algorithm, which is what I've been trying to get at.

At 5/22/12 03:48 AM, AngryBombshell wrote: Capitalism has more to do with circulation of money than technological advances and use of computers. I doubt money will be going away anytime soon.

Really? I haven't seen a dollar bill in a long time. I get paid from online work, it goes straight to my debit card, and I make purchases from there. I think we're closer to a system of credits a la the Jetsons than you may think.

At 5/26/12 10:25 PM, GuerrilleroHeroico wrote:

At 5/26/12 04:09 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: what RWG is trying to say is computers can't replicate the Imagination of the creative process, Quality control, and if something doesn't seem right and its not in the computers software's parameters and Error command will be issued when a human would know what to do.

Quality control jobs alone won't keep labor alive.

maybe but it will help and you cant put imagination in 0s and 1s (yet anyways) as I was saying if something that isn't in its parameters is there it will read error. were better off with humans anyways sure it cost more but its better in the long run.

At 5/27/12 07:48 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: maybe but it will help and you cant put imagination in 0s and 1s (yet anyways) as I was saying if something that isn't in its parameters is there it will read error. were better off with humans anyways sure it cost more but its better in the long run.

The problem is, that at the point at which the OP is concerned about, computers will have the complexity of the human mind, likely with all of the subtle pattern-recognition that allows us to have that imagination. Then again, there is the alternate possibility that the super-intelligent computer will be an augmented human. I mean, why have an external computer when you can simply boost your own intelligence/RAM/Hard Disk space? My blog (see sig) actually deals with the issues of the Singularity, and my next post, due sometime in the next couple weeks, will be dealing with the legal and sociological barriers to a smooth transition. Obviously one of the problems will be the further stratification of our social classes, as the haves get the cool new augmentations, and thus get an even bigger leg up on the have-nots. But there is also the issue of labor; what do we leave to humans, and what do we give to automated systems, and what do we do with all of those people who can't, by virtue of their lack of augmentation, be productive members of our new society?

Around the same time that this happens, it is likely that medical science will effectively stop the aging process. Gene therapy on mammals has already produced lifespans 25% longer than normal (and therapy done on simpler organisms has effectively made them immune to aging). What then, when people don't die from natural causes, and we get the super-stratification from augmentation? How do we cull the herd?

Gives the homeless, the poor, and the under-nurtured youth care packages of novels, art books, basic art & writer supplies, a harmonica or other small musical instrument, and a guidebook to the system by which they can readily market themselves in their creative field of choosing.

Eventually, at some point in the future, everyone can and possibly will be an artist of something; and ideally, these people will be paid in food and shelter. The way I see it, either everyone gets some education and civilization can live on just a bit longer without killing itself or the lack of industrial/manual labor jobs will drive everyone crazy - unaware that anyone can be the boss of their own job.

I think everyone should learn a broader skill-set so that no one can ever honestly say "there aren't any jobs open that I know how to do."

At 5/19/12 07:54 PM, naronic wrote:

This future is going to happen sooner than you think as the projected technological singularity is less than 40 years away. When it does come capitalism will be an ineffective strategy of keeping economic balance in the US. me.

Are you trolling?

At 5/20/12 02:29 AM, Dorkcraft wrote: Truth be told, Capitalism has never "worked".

It has done nothing but destroy the world.

The world isn't destroyed. Argument invalid.

This whole notion is offensive.

The exact Opposite is true.

The easier production becomes, and the higher the availability of energy to do any particular thing happens to be, the MORE capitalism works and less there is need for socialism.

How someone would come to the conclusion of More socialism in a situation where basic needs are fully met almost effortlessly, is amazing. That's the whole point of why people even support socialism to begin with. It's truly telling of how people view themselves. Helpless, dumb and weak.

You're going to tell me if society advances to the point where I would have multiple automaton robots to work for me and endless fusion energy, I can't provide for myself? More specifically, that you couldn't, and you got to run around mewling for socialism and force on others? because you are too damned dumb or in truth, selfish-minded to help yourself and then other people on your own?

Give me 10 fuckin' robots, roughly capable of any physical act a human is capable of, roughly programmed to be as adept as a mediocre farmer, carpenter, chemist, rough engineer, product manufacturer and common laborer, as well as able to do repairs onto each other themselves, slap that along with the output of fusion energy, I'd say two truckloads of various manufactured goods, and some spare parts for the things,

plop my ass in my backyard with a tent, and I can farm to feed myself, build my own damned mansion, construct my own damned means of creating my own damned electricity, and start collecting the raw materials for all of it, to put together out of my back freaking yard and good tub of algae.

You Guys, can go bitch and moan about the damned rich people. I'd have shit to do. You know, besides bitching like a panzy a rich man isn't "granting" me a job. Like some inept bitch who actually needs them, ugh.
By shit, I mean sitting in a hammock while robots go do everything for me before working on my abs.

Really. Think. What the hell is wrong with you guys? Your some sad, sorry examples of human beings. EVERYONE IS EQUALLY CAPABLE of any shit they'd want in that situation of easily work and abundant energy. There's nothing in way of BEING capable of things in that situation. You're talking about a time where they make shit, that makes shit that makes shit.
Soon as it fixes it's Own shit, you don't have to Do shit. Shit. What the fuck.

I don't even pity you guys. You're violent beasts more than humans. Why the hell do you need involuntary socialism, in world where all needs are easily met? Get your lazy subhuman animalass up and Help people if you want to be socialist then.

You know 'wut, you all just stay the hell away from me. Because I'd kill you all like rabid dogs for initiating force on other people.

That whole attitude of having every need met, and still wanting to force other people to do things without even any excuse behind it, deserves just exactly as much a reaction of violence and more. You'd still give two shits how much someone esle had? You're a dangerous asshole.

Besides you people don't Deserve to call any damn shots, hell your first pig'sreaction to the idea of no scarcity at all, is to throw an animalfit and cry about other people doing shit. "Boo hoo, rich people"
Instead of thinking of the awesomely endless possibilities of having the ability at your whim, to create or do anything you could imagine.

At 6/12/12 08:24 AM, VictorGrey wrote: The easier production becomes, and the higher the availability of energy to do any particular thing happens to be, the MORE capitalism works and less there is need for socialism.

You're operating under the assumption that this is the fucking Jetsons, and everyone on the planet will soon have there own personal worker robot (10 of them, you requested). That's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. Automation isn't something that private people can take advantage of, it's expensive fucking technology. Larger businesses who can afford to pay for and maintain automated machines to do work can take advantage of it, because while it's expensive, it's less expensive than paying a worker, plus benefits, healthcare, ect. Plus, machines don't take days off.

Of course if you had 10 fucking automated worker robots, you'd have more free time and energy to make more money. So, enlighten me, just how were you planning on buying these fucking things?

At 5/20/12 01:27 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: bull fucking shit.

WHAT AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE

plop my ass in my backyard with a tent, and I can farm to feed myself, build my own damned mansion, construct my own damned means of creating my own damned electricity, and start collecting the raw materials for all of it, to put together out of my back freaking yard and good tub of algae.

so we would all become self sufficient, making everything we need ourselfs, and basically kill a few industries?

At 6/13/12 09:56 PM, tjl1297 wrote:

plop my ass in my backyard with a tent, and I can farm to feed myself, build my own damned mansion, construct my own damned means of creating my own damned electricity, and start collecting the raw materials for all of it, to put together out of my back freaking yard and good tub of algae.

so we would all become self sufficient, making everything we need ourselfs, and basically kill a few industries?

Not even self sufficient. He's under the impression that we'll soon have the technology to create human-like slave robots to do all of our work for us. Basically, he watched the movie "I, Robot" and decided that based on that, the technology was available. After all, how could it not be? He saw it right there in the movie! Movies can't just create things that aren't real, right?

At 5/20/12 07:18 AM, Jizzlebang wrote:

At 5/20/12 02:29 AM, Dorkcraft wrote: Truth be told, Capitalism has never "worked".

It has done nothing but destroy the world.

So edgy.

Name 5 conflicts that are a direct result by capitalism. 5 conflicts is peanuts in the near infinite amount of wars or conflicts there's been.

Military-Industrial Complex.

That Is All

At 5/19/12 07:54 PM, naronic wrote: This future is going to happen sooner than you think as the projected technological singularity is less than 40 years away.

why 40? is this the friedman unit of the 2010? the next 4 years? the next few decades? is this an arbitrary unit of time you just pulled out of a hat? it's interesting to see when people say "x will fail"...its almost always at least a few decades, that way its kinda far off, but its not far off enough so that it wont happen in your lifetime. i guess its more of a "haha, i called it before everyone else, look who's laughing now" thing than anything else.

When it does come capitalism will be an ineffective strategy of keeping economic balance in the US. America needs a new economic system, quicker than it thinks. Personally I think we need a short switch to socialism in between but that's just me.

as it stands right now, capitalism, or at least this version of it, isnt effective. yes, we need to implement some (more) socialist policies here and there to ensure a safety net for lower income families but america will never become 100% socialist or this or that, nor should it be.